(1.) A tenant under a decree of eviction questions its correctness in this appeal by special leave.
(2.) Respondents 1 and 2 are the brother's sons of respondent 3 Kishorilal Vishwakarma. Respondents commenced an action for ejectment of the appellant under Section 11 (2) (c) and (d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 ('Rent Act' for short) from a shop forming part of holding No. 188 of Ward No. 3 within the area of Giridih Municipality in Bihar State. Claim for possession was founded on the ground mentioned in S. 11 (1) (c) alleging that the respondents in good faith required possession of. the shop for opening an office and a clinic by first respondent Mancharlal Sharma who by then had become a qualified medical practitioner having obtained M. B. B. S. degree. The additional ground on which the claim rested was the usual one of default in payment of rent for a period of two months and more as envisaged by S. 11 (1) (d). Default complained of was failure to pay rent for the months of September, October and November, 1972.
(3.) Appellant contested the suit, inter alia, contending that he did not commit default in payment of rent for the months of September, October and Nov., 1972, and that the same was paid but no receipt was passed and that as the respondents were avoiding statutory liability of passing the receipt acknowledging payment of rent the appellant was forced to send the rent by Money Order from December 1972 and he sent the same month after month, and, therefore, he could not be dubbed a defaulter within the meaning of S. 11 (1) (d). Controverting the ground of personal requirement, the appellant contended that the property belonged to a firm and, therefore, the same cannot be claimed for the use of any one partner for his business other than the business of the firm. And in any case, the respondents have number of houses in their possession and the requirement alleged on behalf of Manoharlal Sharma was incorrect and unwarranted.