CHIRONJILAL PODDAR Vs. MADHUSUDAN THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the petitioner Chiranjilal Poddar, who is the landlord of a building in Muzaffarpur seeks a writ, in the nature of certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution to call us and to quash the order of the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, dated the 28th November, 1955, refusing the petitioner's application for eviction of the opposite party tenants, under section 11(1) (a) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act III of 1947).

(2.) Opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, who are the tenants, have shown cause against the rule, issued by the High Court on the application of the petitioner, under Articles 226 and ,227 of the Constitution, and have also filed a counter-affidavit in reply to the affidavit of the petitioner.

(3.) The opposite party were month to month tenants of the holding belonging to the petitioner on a monthly rental of Rs. 33/-. The opposite party did not pay rent for the period from Asarh, Sambat 2010 up to Sarawan, Sambat 2011, for a period of 14 months, corresponding to the 28th June, 1953, to the 14th August, 1954. The Petitioner therefore, on the 18th August, 1954, applied under section 11(1) (a) the Act before the Controller, Muzaffarpur for eviction of the opposite party, on the ground, inter alia of non-payment of rent. The Controller by an order dated the 24th January, 1955, ordered eviction of the tenants-opposite party on the ground that they had defaulted in payment of rent. An appeal, against the above order by the opposite party to the Collector, was dismissed on the 8th August, 1955, as he agreed that non-payment of rent had been established and, therefore, eviction must follow as a matter of course. A revision was taken to the Commissioner by the tenants, opposite party, and the learned Commissioner by his order dated the 28th August, 1955, set aside the order of the Collector ordering eviction, and disallowed the application of the petitioner for eviction of the opposite party. The Petitioner has moved this court and asked for an appropriate writ against this order of the learned Commissioner.