SHANKARLAL VERMA Vs. UMA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners and opposite parties are heirs of one Satyanarayan Verma and Krushna Chandra Sahoo respectively. Krushna Chandra initiated eviction proceeding bearing No. 82 of 19,76 against Satyanarayan from a shop room in Balu Bazar in the city of Cuttack Under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement of the same by Krushna Chandra. The House Rent Controller allowed the prayer for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement only. In appeal the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack confirmed the order of conviction on both the grounds. Being dissatisfied the heirs of Satyanarayan have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to quash the order of eviction.

(2.) THE shop room in question stands on 2 .decimals of Khasmahal land which forms part of Ac. 1,825 decimals of lease -hold area of deity Binod Bihari Thakur taken lease from the Khasmahal authorities by Registered lease deed dated 25 -2 -1952. The lease was to enure till 31 -3 -1973 with a right of renewal thereafter by one or more leases at intervals of 30 years. Krushna Chandra as a sub -lessee under the deity Binod Bihari Thakur came into possession of the shop room which bears holding No. 135 in Ward No. 9 of Cuttack Municipality and inducted Satya Narayan Verma as a tenant in the year 1954. Satya Narayan was possessing the shop room since then paying rent. In the eviction proceeding Krushna Chandra alleged that Satya Narayan had not paid rent since 1970 in spite of repeated demands and had thereby wilfully defaulted. The other ground of bona fide requirement was to employ three marjor sons of Krushna Chandra in business. The House Bent Controller did not accept the case of wilful default, but allowed the prayer for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. The Iearned Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court on the point of bona fide requirement and accepted the case of Krushna Chandra that Satyanarayan was an wilful defaulter.

(3.) IMPUGNED orders are attacked before us on the sole ground that the term of lease in favour of deity Binod Bihari having expired, the property belonged to the State Government and therefore, the eviction proceeding at the instance of Krushna Chandra the sub -lessee could not be maintained. Indisputably, a sub -lessee cannot have better right than the lessee In the facts o1 the case therefore, the moot question for determination is whether the lease in favour of the deity Binod Bihari stood determined after 31 3 -1973. For deciding this question, it is first necessary to know the incidents of a Khasmahal lease.