GURU PRASAD Vs. SADHU SHARAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference to a larger Bench was made in view of the order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 5.4.1990.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are as follows : The plaintiff filed a suit in the year 1974 for a decree of eviction of the defendant, inter alia, on the ground that the lease expired on 30th April, 1973 and the period of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had also expired. The suit premises is located at Garhwa in the District of Palamau. At the relevant time, the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (for short "the 1947 Act") as extended from time to time was in force. 1947 Act did not apply to Garhwa. The Act was replaced by 1977 Act with effect from 1st April, 1976. 1977 Act also did not apply to Garhwa. On 20th November, 1979, the suit was directed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff landlord. 1977 Act was replaced by the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short "1982 Act") with effect from 1st April, 1981. 1982 Act was made applicable to the whole of State of Bihar. On 31st March, 1982 the appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed. Thereafter, the present second appeal was filed by the tenant.

(3.) THE question before the learned Judge of the Division Bench was as to whether it can be said that the provisions of Section 11 of the said Act, applied in the facts and circumstances of this case. The learned Judge considered the case of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1965 JLJ (SN 76), Punjab and Haryana High Court, 1975 RCJ (SN 31), Karnataka High Court in 1975 RCJ (SN 34) and 1974 RCJ 87. It also referred to a decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1967 All 214 wherein it was held that with the extension of the Rent Act to a new area, the benefit of defence would also be available to the tenants in a pending litigation whether it is at the stage of suit, appeal or a revision. The learned Judges of the Division Bench held that there is a sharp divergence of judicial opinion as to whether such provision in the Rent Act would apply to pending litigation whether at the stage of suit, appeal or revision.