NIRANJAN PAL Vs. CHAITANYALAL GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals have been placed before this Bench as common points of law, which are of general importance, arise in them. I shall first deal with Second Appeals Nos. 467 and 468 of 1959 which are both directed against one and the same judgment. The parties in Second Appeal No. 957 of 1959 are different, and the facts are also different. I shall deal with that appeal at the end. SECOND APPEALS NOS. 467 AND 468 OF 1959:

(2.) These appeals by the tenant-defendant arise cut of two suits for his eviction from two parts of the' same house under Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 [hereinafter to be referred to as the Control Act). Under the section as it stands after amendment by Bihar Act 16 of 1955, a tenant can be evicted only in execution of a decree passed by the Court on any of the grounds mentioned therein. Before the amendment, the landlord had to apply to the Controller for a direction, evicting the tenant.

(3.) On the 4th May, 1954, the plaintiff-landlord, who is the respondent in this Court, started proceedings under old Section 11 of the Control -Act for eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent from January to April, 1954. The Controller passed an order of eviction; but, by an order dated the 17th August, 1956, the Commissioner set aside the eviction order. Thereafter, th9 landlord instituted the suits, out of which these appeals have arisen, on the 30th August, 1956. His case is that two parts of the house were separately "let out to the defendant on a rental of Rs. 507- per month for each part, and that he has defaulted in paying the rent for both parts from January, 1954 to the 30th August, 1956. Hence, the plaintiff has sought decrees for eviction of the defendant under Section 11 (1) (d) of the Control Act.