Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 185 (PAT)

Sunil Kumar Keshri v. Sadhana Ganguli

1996-03-21

GURUSHARAN SHARMA

body1996
Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. The plaintiff-opposite party filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 30 of 1989, against the defendant petitioner for eviction under Sec. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act" for short). According to the plaintiff, the fixed term of tenancy of the defendant expired on 30.11.1988 and, thereafter he became liable for eviction from the suit premises detailed in the schedule to the plaint under Sec. 11(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The defendant appeared, filed written statement and contested the suit on the ground, inter alia, that the tenancy was renewed and rent for the month of December, 1988 was accepted by the plaintiff and for that on 4.1.1989 rent receipt was security. According to the defendant he never deposited one months rent together with one months electric charges as security. The plaintiff fixed an iron made stair case in front of the shop of the defendant and thereby violated the term of tenancy and so the defendant filed House Rent Control Case before the House Rent Controller, Dhanbad, and the suit was the counter blast thereof. 3. It appears that the tenancy started from 1.1.1988 on the basis of a written Agreement which was for a fixed period of eleven months only. On the expiry of the said period the tenant failed to vacate the suit promises. A House Rent Control Case No. 3 of 1989. Under Sec. 10 of the Act was filed by the tenant. After termination of the said tenancy on 30.11.1988, the tenant tendered rent for the month of December, 1988 which was accepted by the landlord and a receipt was granted thereof. 4. In course of the trial, the plaintiff brought on record the Agreement dated 1.1.1988, creating the tenancy of fixed term for eleven months, which was marked as Exhibit 3. After termination of the said tenancy on 30.11.1988, the tenant tendered rent for the month of December, 1988 which was accepted by the landlord and a receipt was granted thereof. 4. In course of the trial, the plaintiff brought on record the Agreement dated 1.1.1988, creating the tenancy of fixed term for eleven months, which was marked as Exhibit 3. As per the Agreement, the tenancy commenced on and from 1.1.1988 and was for a period of eleven months from the date of commencement and was to terminate automatically on the date of expiry of eleven months and the tenant was required to vacate the room, unless the tenancy was renewed on such term and condition as the parties agreed for another period of eleven months, provided that the tenant informed the landlord in writing of his intention to extend the period at least one month before the expiry of the period fixed. 5. The tenant claimed to have sent a notice (Exhibit D) under certificate of posting (Exhibit D/1) to the landlord for renewal of the tenancy but the plaintiff denied to have received any such notice. 6. By the impugned judgment/order dated 24.9.1991 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 30 of 1989, the learned Munsif First, Dhanbad, has been pleased to decree the suit and direct the defendant to vacate the suit premises. The defendant, therefore, has fled this Civil Revision application under Section 14(8) of the Act. 7. Mr. Merathia, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Agreement, Exhibit 3 being unregistered was inadmissible in evidence to determine whether the tenancy in question was for a fixed period or not. The said document could not have been looked into for the purpose of determining whether the lease was for a fixed period and the defendant was, therefore, a month to month tenant, and there was no question of either expiry of any fixed term of the tenancy or the renewal thereof. The impugned judgment/officer and the decree for eviction is, therefore, fit to be set aside. 8. Kr. Das, counsel for the opposite party, on the other has submitted that in Exhibit 3 of the defendant admitted the tenancy for a specified period and the right of the plaintiff-landlord to get the house vacated by him on the expiry of the said period. 8. Kr. Das, counsel for the opposite party, on the other has submitted that in Exhibit 3 of the defendant admitted the tenancy for a specified period and the right of the plaintiff-landlord to get the house vacated by him on the expiry of the said period. Having made such stipulation in Exhibit 3 of the defendant cannot by allowed to resile from that position and will be stopped from doing so. According to Mr. Das, the Agreement (Exhibit 3) was not required to be registered. Acceptance of rent by the plaintiff after of the said period did not create a month to month tenancy. The impugned judgment/order as well as the eviction decree, therefore, did not require interference by this Court. 9. It is not the case of the plaintiff that there was an oral agreement for the lease accompanied by delivery of possession. On the Country the specific case Was that the lease was created on the basis of a written Agreement dated 1.1.1988 (Exhibit 3). 10. In Maheshdeo Prasad Singh and Anr. V/s. Shree Thakurjee Shree Radhakrishna and Ors. 1967 BLJR 521, a Division Bench of this Court held that an un-registered Kirayanama was inadmissible in evidence to establish a tenancy for a term and such tenancy would be deemed to be a month to month tenancy. 11. In my opinion, in view of the aforesaid legal proposition Exhibit 3 was inadmissible in evidence to determine whether the lease was for a fixed period. The trial court has determined the fixed term of tenancy in this case has determined the fixed term of tenancy in this case solely on the basis of said Exhibit 3. That being so, the lease in question in this case cannot to said to have been terminated by efflux of 11 months time. The result will be that the tenancy to question will be deemed to be a month to month tenancy. Accordingly the finding of the trial court that as per the Agreement (Exhibit 3) the defendant was liable for eviction after expiry of the fixed term of tenancy cannot be sustained and is set aside. 12. In the result, this Civil Revision application is allowed and the judgment and decree of the Court below are set aside and the suit is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.