The tenant cannot question the title of the lessor during tenancy, and the lessor retains rights despite changes in property status under the Bihar Land Reforms Act.

JUDGMENT :

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.

1. Appellant is plaintiff and this appeal has been preferred against the judgment of reversal passed in Title Appeal No. 12 of 2007.

CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF

2. Plaintiff company filed the suit for a decree for khas possession of land measuring 3.544 acre described in Schedule A of the plaint.

3. Plaintiff company is the proprietor and owner of the land in dispute and defendant respondent is a monthly tenant on a rental of Rs.318.96 per month under the plaintiff/appellant company. As agreed between the parties, the tenancy was extended up to 31.12.1969.

4. The suit land vested in the State of Bihar Act-5 of 1972. However, by deed of lease dated 01.08.1985 State of Bihar leased out the lands including the suit land to the plaintiff/appellant.

5. Notice was sent to the defendant/respondent to vacate the land by 31.12.1970 as the land in suit was required by the company and because also the defendant/respondent had also defaulted in paying the rent to the tune of Rs.5103.36.

CASE OF THE DEFENDANT

6. It is admitted that defendant was inducted on lease in respect of the suit land commencing from 18.12.1958 on year to year basis. It is however denied that extension of the tenancy up-to 31.12.1969.

7. The lease was in pursuance to an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant to set up a plant for manufacturing mineral wood from the slag which is a by product generated by the steel manufacturing unit of the plaintiff ’s company. In order to install manufacturing plant, heavy investment was made by defendant and, therefore, the tenancy was not terminable. It is also asserted that the suit land was not leased out by the appellant company.

8. The learned Sub-Ordinate Judge framed following main issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:

I. Has the defendant validly served with the notice determining its tenancy as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act?

II. Has the defendant defaulted in making payment of rent of the suit land from month of September, 1969?

III. Is the defendant in arrears of rent for a sum of Rs. 5103.36 paise? Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for Rs. 5103.36 paise? Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for compensation for Rs. 63.78?

IV. Is the plaintiff entitled to get khas possession of the suit land leaving the ground clear of all obstructions and debris by evicting the defendants therefrom?

9. Learned trial Court decreed the suit by recording a finding in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to all the issues. Trial Court held that notice (Ext-1) for vacating the scheduled land was duly served on the defendant. The notice stated that defendant was on monthly tenancy from 18.12.1958 and the lease was extended from time to time and ultimately extended up to 31.12.1969.

10. With regard to the plea of the defendant that land got vested in the State by operation of State of Bihar Act-5 of 1972, it was held that post such vesting the lease deed was executed by the State of Bihar on 06.08.1985 (Ext-6) and the suit land included the land for which the lease was renewed by the State. It held that plaintiff company was competent to file the present suit of eviction of the defendant company and take khas possession of the suit land. Status of defendant company with respect to the suit land vis-a-vis the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit land had not undergone any change, for clause XXV of Exhibit 6 had no application in the present case.

11. On appeal by defendant/respondent, the 1st Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur formulated two point for determination of the said appeal:

I. Whether the defendant was inducted as a month to month tenant or it was year to year lease and whether any valid notice under Section 106 T.P. Act was served.

II. Whether Exhibit 6, the registered deed of lease executed by the State of Bihar does or does not garb the plaintiff with the status of lessee under the State of Bihar with respect to the suit land entitling it to se