TARANG SAHU Vs. SURENDRA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant civil revision application under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 has been filed by the defendant-petitioner impugning the judgment dated 12.3.1996 passed in Eviction Title Suit No. 27/92.

(2.) Before dealing with the grievances made by the petitioner it would be appropriate to portray the factual backgrounds: The opposite party-Landlord filed the said Eviction Suit on the ground that after expiry of the period of lease on 31.5.1992 the defendant-petitioner had no right to remain in occupation of the said premises. According to the plaintiff-opposite party, he is the owner and landlord of the suit premises and on the request made by the defendant-petitioner for letting out the same for the purposes of opening a Beauty Parlour, the opposite party agreed and on the basis of an oral lease for a fixed period of 11 months the suit premises was rented to the petitioner. A memorandum of oral deed in respect of the suit premises was duly executed on 5.12.1986 commencing from 1.12.1986 to 31.10.1987. It is not in dispute that the said lease was extended from time to time for a further period of 11 months on monthly rent of Rs. 59/-. Further case of the plaintiff-opposite party was that the dealings of the defendant was unsatisfactory inasmuch as she was not regular in payment of rent and, as a matter of fact, she had not paid rent for the months of April and May, 1992. As in spite of several requests made to the defendant-petitioner to vacate the suit premises the defendant did not vacate the suit premises, the suit was filed.

(3.) However, in her written statement the defendant, besides taking the usual defence of non-maintainability of the suit, principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiscience and barred by law of limitation etc. put forward a positive case that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Defendant's husband is a co-sharer of the plaintiff and a suit for partition with respect to the suit premises is pending in the civil court. The defendant-petitioner also put forward a case that the plaintiff-opposite party took advance of Rs. 10, 000/- on the understanding that the same will be adjusted in future rent and as such, there was no question of default in payment of rent for the months of April and May, 1992. However, the main defence of the defendant-petitioner was that she was a month to month tenant and not a tenant on fixed term tenancy for 11 months. No oral lease was ever executed by her for a fixed term of 11 months. On there grounds the defendant-petitioner resisted the claim of the plaintiff-opposite party.