CHITRANJAN BURMAN Vs. OM PRAKASH BAJORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals, by special leave, are from the judgment of the High Court of patna, Ranchi bench, in second appeal no. 29 of 1980 dated 30/09/1997. They arise under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (for short, the Act'). Civil appeal no. 975 of 1998 is by the tenants (referred to in this judgement as 'burmans') and civil appeal no. 3972 of 1998 is by the landlords (referred to in this judgement as 'bajorias').

(2.) The facts giving rise to these appeal may be stated in brief to appreciate the controversy in them. Title suit no. 111 of 1974 was filed in the court of munsiff, ranchi by Bajorias against Lachmi Sahu, the original tenant and the predecessor-in- interest of Burmans, for his eviction from shop no. 1 measuring 6x8x6 feet (part of municipal holding no. 1184) , Ward II, randhir Prasad Street, Upper Bazar, ranchi) hereinafter referred to as 'the shop'). The eviction was sought on two grounds : (1) non-payment of monthly rent of Rs. 20. 00 for a period of more than three years from February 197 1/06/1974) under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 11; and (ii) reasonable personal. requirement of Bajorias in good faith under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 11 of Act. The original tenant contested the suit on both the grounds. With regard to default his case was that the rent was paid to the first plaintiff in the suit, namely, Atma ram Bajoria, but when he refused to receive the same, it was being sent by money order which was being returned as refused. The personal requirement of the bajorias was also denied stating that they held many residential as well as non- residential buildings and therefore, did not reasonably require the premises in good faith for their occupation. Trial court found both the grounds, against the Bajorias and dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned judicial commissioner, Chhota Nagpur, ranchi allowed the appeal of the Bajorias, set aside the finding of the trial court on both the grounds and decreed the suit. The burmans carried the matter in appeal to the high Court - second appeal no. 29 of 1980. By the impugned judgment, the High Court reversed the finding of the 1st appellate court on both the grounds but thought it fit to remand the case to the 1st appellate court to decide as to whether there had been default in payment of rent for the month of March, 1972 and August, 1973. Thus, the High Court disposed of the second appeal on 30/09/1977. Insofar as the ground of default in payment of rent and personal requirement were held against the Bajorias, they filed civil appeal no. 3972 of 1998 and aggrieved by the remand of case to the 1st appellate court in regard to default for two months indicated above, the Burmans filed civil appeal no. 975 of 1998.

(3.) Mr. Sunil Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the Bajorias, has strenuously contended that the arrears of rent not having been paid for a long period of three and a half years, the Burmans were liable to be evicted and that the plea of valid tender of rent by them was found to be incorrect by the 1 st appellate court; the High court ought not to have interfered with the finding of fact. Therefore, the appeal has to be allowed. The second contention of mr. Gupta is with regard to reasonable requirement ; it is submitted that the approach of the High Court is erroneous and that the appellate court held in favour of Bajorias, therefore, they are entitled to an order of eviction on that ground as well. He has also argued that the impugned order of the High Court is a nullity and this court may be pleased to make a declaration to that effect.