JAMUNA PRASAD LALA Vs. BENGAL IRON CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question at issue in this appeal is whether the execution of the decree taken by the respondent is barred under Section 11, Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947.

(2.) The respondent brought the suit on the ground that the appellant was a tenant-at-will having been let in possession of the disputed plots by virtue of a compromise in a previous title suit. As the appellant refused to quit in spite of the service of notice the respondent claimed that he should be granted a decree for ejectment and for vacant possession of two plots. The appellant contested the suit on the ground that he had constructed a permanent structure upon the plots within the knowledge of the respondent and was therefore not liable to be evicted therefrom. The appellant also denied that the plaintiff had title in respect of the land. The trial Judge granted a decree to the plaintiff which the learned Subordinate Judge reversed. In second appeal the High Court restored the decree of the trial Judge which is to the following effect;

(3.) In support of this appeal, Mr. Anwar Ahmad addressed the argument that Section 11 of Bihar Act III [3] of 1947 is a bar to the execution of the decree. In my opinion, this argument is untenable. Section 11 (1) of the Act is to the following effect: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement or law to the contrary and subject to the provisions of Section 12, where a tenant is in possession of any building, he shall not be liable to be evicted therefrom, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except --