SURENDRA NATH SINHA Vs. INDRAJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This civil revision application arises out of an order dated 20-4-1993, passed by the learned Munsif, in exercise of its power under Section 18 (2) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 1982, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It appears that the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 18 (2) of the Act was heard on merit by the learned Munsif and he rejected the same holding that the petitioners have not proved the notice served upon them by Opp. Party under Section 18 (1) of the Act

(2.) The short facts giving rise to this civil -revision application are as under ;- The suit premises in question was let out to the Opp. Party on the basis of fixed term tenancy created w. e. f. 7-1-1988 for a rerms of five years ending on 6-1-1993. The agreement of fixed term tenancy has been filed in this application and has been marked as Annexure-2 to the same. In the agreement, there is no clause for renewal of the lease. However, since the fixed term tenancy was expiring, the Opp Party served a notice purported to be under Section 18 (1) of the Act, dated 1-12-1992, upon the petitioners by registered post, which was delivered on 2-12-1992. The petitioners having received the notice filed their objection under Section 18 (2) of the Act, before the learned Munsif on 14.12-1982 with a prayer to terminate the fixed term tenancy the application aforementioned, however, has been rejected by the learned Manisf as indica'ed above giving rise to this application.

(3.) Mr. N. K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the application filed on the petitioners under Subsection (2) of Section 18 of the Act could not have been rejected and as per the requirement of Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below could have extended the maximum period of one year or could have terminated the fixed term tenancy He, however, contended that since the Court had no other option, the order impugned rejecting the objection could not have been passed.