PRAKASH KUMAR SINHA Vs. GAURI SHANKAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant of Title suit no. 61 of 1978, pending in the court of Additional Munsif, Darbhanga, is the petitioner here. The order under challenge is that dated 7th June, 1984. By the impugned order the court below has directed the petitioner (tenant) that he must deposit the arrears of rent under the provisions of Sec. 13of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977, (Bihar Act XVI of 1977), at the rate of Rs. 60/ - per month for the period between October, 1976, to May, 1984. within one month from the date or the order and for each subsequent month, by the 15th of the succeeding month. Mr. R.K. Verma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, raised a number of points in this case, all of which do not go to point out any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Yet, a part of the order under challenge must be struck down on the ground of a clear error of jurisdiction. But before I pinpoint that particular aspect the relevant facts short as they are, may just be narrated.

(2.) The instant suit was instituted in the year 1978 under the provision of the 1977 Act for eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises. An application under Sec. 13of the Act was filed on 9th March, 1979. It may be pertinent to note here that by statutory efflux of time the 1977 Act was non est on the date either when the suit was filed or on the date on which the application under Sec. 13of the 1977 Act was filed. All the same, on a consideration of the matter by some Bench decisions of this Court, it has been held that by virtue of the subsequent Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, (Bihar Act 4 of 1983), the 1977 Act shall be deemed to continue to remain in operation which in term perpetuated an old Act of 1947. Therefore, the question as to whether there was any Statute in the interregnum period is wholly immaterial and it is neither here nor there for the purpose of disposal of this application.

(3.) The first point that was urged on behalf of the petitioner was that he was not in possession qua tenant but as an owner of the suit premises. Both the parties had led evidence, and a mass of them, in the court below; and the court below has prima facie recorded a finding that the petitioner was a tenant under the opposite party and that there was a subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Learned Counsel invited my attention to numerous facts and wanted me to appraise them for coming to a finding contrary to that recorded by the court below. That does not come within the scope of Sec. 115of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the appraisal of the evidence on record, a prima facie finding with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been recorded and that is the end of the matter for the present purpose. The rate at which rent was last paid has been prima facie held to be at a sum of Rs. 60/ - per month. These two prima facie findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a civil revision.