GOUREEPADA CHATTOPADHYAYA Vs. JANKI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is by the plaintiff arising out of an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chaibassa rejecting his petition under Section 11-A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the suit itself was not instituted under the provisions of the Act. The relevant facts are these :

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises and the defendant is in occupation of the same. According to the plaintiff's case, as made out in the plaint the defendant was previously a monthly tenant on rent of Rs. 45 of the premises in question. In order to improve the condition of the then existing structure, the defendant handed over vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff along with other occupants of the building so much so completely surrendering the tenancy. The plaintiff thereupon reconstructed and then leased out the said premises to the defendant on certain terms and conditions, inter alia, on "the distinct understanding that in case of Ms failure to execute a lease after paying the agreed amount, he would be treated as a licensee and would be evicted from the block". In assertion of his right that he was lessor, the plaintiff also refused to accept the rent tendered by the defendant by money order. He accordingly instituted the present suit "for removal of the defendant and his total ouster from block No. 9". In Schedule 'B' of the plaint, he also gave the account of money claim of Rs. 120 which was as follows ; <FRM>JUDGEMENT_215_AIR(PAT)_1976Html1.htm</FRM> In paragraph 12 of his plaint, the plaintiff made the following unequivocal statements :

(3.) In the written statement, the defendant, however, took a position that he was not a licensee but was a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 34.50.