IQBAL Vs. NESAR AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the concurrent findings by both the courts below in respect of Title Suit No. 259/1982 & 20/85. The appellant has filed the suit against the defendants -respondent for eviction on the ground of defaulter and also on the ground that the defendant -tenant was damaging the suit premises of the plaintiff.

(2.) ADMITTED facts remained that the suit premises were given on rental to the defendant on the basis of a registered lease deed executed on 1.8.1982 for five years. Just after 3 -4 months of execution of lease the present eviction suit was filed. The defendant had taken plea in the suit that when the plaintiff refused to receive rent then he started paying rent through money orders. Regarding other plea of damaging of the suit properties has totally been denied by the tenant.

(3.) THE only point that has been urged before this court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that when during pendency of the suit tease period had expired and a petition filed then courts below ought to have taken notice that under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, section - 11(1) (c). The expiry of lease period is also a ground for eviction. The courts below have taken a plea that the cause of action for eviction was sought oh the ground of defaulter and for damaging of the suit properties. No where at any point of time such cause of action had been attempted to be altered by the plaintiff -landlord by bringing into the cause of action regarding eviction towards expiry of lease. In that way I do not find that the courts below had committed any error in rejecting the petition filed for taking cognizance of the fact of expiry of lease. No where in the suit or in this appeal any petition was filed on behalf of the landlord for amendment of the plaint bringing the ground of expiry of lease as a ground for eviction and cause of action. In that way I do not find any point of law is involved in this appeal and there is no substantial questions of law when decision on factual aspect by the courts below is same then this appeal cannot be admitted and hence dismissed under Order -41 Rule -11 of the C.P.C.