RAM SHARAN YADAV Vs. RABI SHANKAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') was originally filed by two persons, namely, Ram Sharan Yadav (Petitioner No. 1) and Suresh Prasad (Petitioner No 2). Petitioner No. 2 described himself as the present Head Master and asserts that he was also one of defendants in the court below.

(2.) The portrayal of the relevant facts are as follows : The plaintiff- opposite party No. 1 asserted that he owns and possesses the disputed property which was rented to the defendants 1 to 3, the petitioner No. 1, Prof. Surendra Kumar Sinha Opposite-party No. 2 and one Binay Kumar Ranjan for a period of 11 months commencing from December 1984 at the monthly rent of Rs. 300/- only for running a private Middle School in the name and style of Sri Jamuna Prasad Madhya Vidayala, Khagaria and that all of them executed a deed of Kerayanama jointly in his favour on 28th December, 1984 earlier he had rented to the aforesaid defendants also the said premises for the said purpose but for one year only in December, 1983 and that the opposite party No. 2 m the capacity of the Secretary had executed a deed of Kerayanama on 30th December, 1983 but who despite expiry of the earlier lease when asked to hand over vacant possession they started putting pressure on him to allow them to remain in occupation for a tfurther period of 11 months though at an enhanced rate. The defendant No. 1 was then a member of Bihar Legislative Assembly. As despite expiry of the fixed term lease the defendants have not vacated they are liable for their eviction under Section 11 (e) of the Act. He also asserted that he needs the premises for his personal bona fide use and occupation inasmuch as he wants to provide a business to his eldest son by installing a Mill of Oil, Rice and Flour as the suit premises is very suitable and fit for the said purpose.

(3.) Out of the aforesaid three defendants, the opposite party No. 2 alone appeared in this suit and put an affidavit in the summary enquiry under Section 14 of the Act. His defends, inter alia, was that the defendant No 3 had left the service of the school and in his place the petitioner No 2 herein has been made incharge headmaster who has not been made a party to the suit, that the suit house was taken on rent in the year 1977 at the rate of Rs. 150 per month only but the plain tiff pressed hard and compelled repeatedly to enhance rent, the fixed term lease agreement is against the law, there was never any fixed tenancy, and that the data of personal necessity is false as the plaintiff is having two big homes in front of the suit house which he had let out to other tenants.