DINESH NANDAN SAHAY Vs. RAM KRIPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE tenant-appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 1985 passed in Title Suit No. 19 of 1982 / 209 of 1985 by which the Vllth Addl. Sub-Judge, Patna has decreed the plaintiffs-respondents suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity, expiry of the term of lease and default in payment of rent in term of the provisions contained in the Bihar Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control act ).

(2.) IT is an admitted case of the parties that Patna Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) was constituted under the Bihar Town Planning and improvement Trust Act to provide for the development of the town of Patna. At present the trust has ceased to exist and its duties and functions are being performed by Patna regional Development Authority constituted under the provisions of the Bihar Regional development Authority Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Authority ). The trust acquired the lands and developed the same and also constructed houses over some of the lands and leased the same to the persons fulfilling the eligibility condition con-tained in the rules and regulations of the frust.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff no. 1 he took the suit premises described in schedule-1 on lease (wrongly described as hire purchase-cum-lease) on 28. 6. 1972 by a registered deed of lease (Ext. 1) for a period of 99 years on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said document and came in possession over the same. The plaintiff at the relevant time was in Bihar judicial Service and his son plaintiff no. 2 was looking after the affairs on his behalf and on 1. 6. 1973 the house was let out to the defendant, who at the relevant time was the Managing Director of the Bihar Ware housing Corporation, on monthly rent of rs. 425/-for six months. After the expiry of six months he did not vacate the premises, however, he continued in the same and paid rent upto July, 1980. The defendant appellant used to pay the rent monthly by cheque. For the month of August, 1980 he sent the rent by cheque also but the same was dishonoured because it did not bear the signature of defendant. Again he paid rent for the month of September and October, 1980 but from November, 1980 he stopped the payment of rent. It is further stated by the plaintiff that he retired from the Judicial Service and intend to start the practice in Patna High Court and as such requires the premises reasonably and in good faith for his own use. The plaintiff no. 1 served notice upon the defendant terminating the tenancy and asking him to pay the arrears of rent and deliver the possession w. e. f. 1. 8. 1981 but the defendant did not vacate the same, hence the suit.