OM PRAKASH Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER PATNA DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for a suitable writ on behalf of the landlord to quash an order passed by the Additional Commissioner of the Patna Division setting aside an order of the Collector directing vacant possession to be given to the petitioner.

(2.) The facts were these. On 14-1-1953, the petitioner gave lease of a portion of his shop premises (holding No. 76, Ward No. 33 in the New Market at Patna) for a period of 11 monthe. The tenant, opposite party No. 4, who will be hereinafter referred as the tenant, occupied the premises on the same date and an agreement was drawn up and signed both by the petitioner and the renant, but the same was not registered. On 13-12-1953, the term of the lease expired, and the petitioner served a notice on the tenant to quit the premises. As the tenant refused to give up possession the petitioner, on 25-5-1954, filed an application under Section 11, Sub-section (1), Clause (b), Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, as modified by Bihar Act 5 of 1933, hereinafter to be referred also as the Act, for eviction of the tenant on three grounds, namely, that the term of the lease had expired; that there had been non-payment of rent for December, 1953; and that the premises were required for his personal use. The tenant was asked to show cause, and is his show cause petition he averred that the agreement was of a monthly tenancy, but under pressure it was given the shape of a lease for 11 months and that after the expiry of the previous tenancy in question, a new agreement was mads between the tenant and the petitioner with effect from 15-12-1953, and the terms of the next agreement were that the tenant would occupy the premises on the basis or a monthly tenancy of Rs. 100/- per month. The other grounds taken up in the show cause petition are not necessary for determination of the controversy raised before us.

(3.) The Controller rejected thf prayer of the petitioner ior eviction of the tenant on his finding that there was an understanding of longer term of lease and it would be unfair to evict him. after he had invested a large amount of money in his business. He, however found that there was no direct evidence of fraud, duress or coercion on the part of the petitioner. The learned Controller found against the petitioner with regard, to the other two grounds, namely, default in payment of rent and personal necessity.