NAND LAL AGRAWAL Vs. GANESH PRASAD SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the appellant. The appeal arises out of a suit for eviction of the appellant from a building under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. The suit for eviction was founded on three grounds namely, bonafide personal requirement for opening a drug shop, default of payment of rent for five months and breach of the condition of tenancy i.e., conversion of the suit premises by starting a grocery shop which was taken by the tenant for residential purposes.

(2.) The defence of the tenant appellant in the original court was that the bona fide requirement of the landlord was not available to him since he has a number of houses in the main market and he also holds a shop therein. Besides the suit premises were situated outside market area and in a remote mohalla of Dumka town. As regards breach of the terms of tenancy, the tenant pleaded that he was running the grocery shop in accordance with the term of tenancy and within the knowledge of the landlord. As regards the question of default, the tenant pleaded that since the fair rent of the house was already fixed by the House Controller under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act and when the same was in occupation of the previous tenant, the rental of 60/ - per month later increased to Rs. 70/ - per month, was in excess of the fair rent and not legally recoverable. Further pleading was that the tenant bad made a deposit of Rs. 300/ - as advance and security which should have been adjusted towards the rent due. He also pleaded that rent in excess of fair rent was also liable to be adjusted.

(3.) The trial court decided all the questions raised in favour of the landlord except a few issues i.e. the tenancy being for residential as well as business purpose and enhancement of rent from Rs. 60/ - to Rs. 70/ - being illegal and regarding the plea of the Defendant that he had made additions and alterations in the premises himself.