RAM NIRANJAN PRASAD TULSYAN Vs. CHHEDILAL SARAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application on behalf of the plaintiff landlord an interesting Question has been raised for consideration of this Court.

(2.) The relevant facts are these, It is not disputed that the premises in question was in lease by the plaintiff to the defendants for a fixed term of twenty years commencing from the 15th of January, 1962 on a monthly rental of Rs. 111/-. According to his further case, the defendants committed defaults in payment of the monthly rentals for the months of February, March and April 1969. I am not concerned with the other allegations made in the plaint regarding breach of the conditions of the tenancy.

(3.) After the written statement was filed by the defendants, the plaintiff made an application under Section 11-A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act for necessary direction in regard to the deposit of the arrears and future rents. The learned Munsif, however, has refused the prayer on taking a view that Section 11-A of the Act was itself not attracted to the facts of the present case because "it was not a case of month to month tenancy but a case of lease", as the provisions of Section 11 were subject to those contained in Section 12 of the Act. He also repelled the contention of the plaintiff that Clause (e) of Section 11 of the Act which provides a ground for eviction, of a tenant, in case of his holding on a lease for a specified period on the expiry of the period of the tenancy, by an argument that this was not a case for eviction of a tenant within the meaning of Clause (e) of Section 11 on the expiry of the period of tenancy, but was under Clause (a). In my opinion, the learned Munsif has committed an apparent error of jurisdiction. Section 11 of the Act has provided all the grounds upon which an action for eviction of tenants can be taken under the Act. Under Clause (d) a tenant can be evicted where the amount of two months' rent lawfully payable by him and due is in arrears. The law now does not make any distinction after its extensive amendments in the year 1955 in the case of a tenant month to month on any other class of tenant. Under Clause (a) of the Act before the amendment, action for eviction on the ground of nonpayment of rent, breach of the conditions of the tenancy, or for subletting of the building without the consent of the land-lord now incorporated under Clauses (a), (b) and (d) of the substituted section, could be taken only against a 'tenant month to month'. This classification has been advisedly omitted from the present section and the present law does not make any distinction in the case of a tenant month to month or of any other tenant. Apparently, therefore, action for eviction of a tenant who might be even holding premises on a lease for a specified period, may well be taken where he commits a default in payment of two months' rent within the meaning of Clause (d) of Section 11 which position was not available to such a landlord under the old provision of Section 11.