BOKARO AND RAMGUR LTD Vs. PRASUN KUMAR BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR. T. N. Banerjee, Chairman, Banerjee Trust, leased out a portion of a house, situated within the limits of Patna Municipal Corporation near the Gandhi Maidan, to a Company known as Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. by a written agreement dated the 13th September, 1960. Under the terms of the lease the company had agreed that on its failure to pay rent for two consecutive months to the lessor, it would be liable to be evicted from the demised premises. The rent which was fixed by way of consolidated charges was to be paid by the company to the lessor by the 7th day of each month. According to the case of the lessor, the lessee failed to pay the rent for the months of June, July. August and September, 1961, in spite of repeated demands and so the former served a notice dated the 11th of September, 1961 on the latter terminating the lease and requesting it to vacate the house forthwith or latest by the 30th of September, 1961. Disputes arose between the parties in connection with the matter aforesaid, and they agreed to refer them to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement incorporated in the deed of lease. Eventually, Shri Ayodhya Pd. Sinha, a retired subordinate Judge, was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to decide and determine the disputes between the parties.

(2.) THE contentious question which fell for determination before the Arbitrator was whether the lessee had defaulted in payment of rent and was liable to be evicted from the demised premises. THE arbitrator, after hearing the parties and taking evidence in the matter, came to the conclusion that there has been forfeiture of the lease because the rent for more than two consecutive months had not been paid by the lessee to the lessor. He, therefore, held that the former was liable to be evicted and made an award accordingly on the 6th of May, 1962.

(3.) THE civil revision came up for hearing before a Bench of this court consisting of Tarkeshwar Nath and Anwar Ahmad, JJ. THE only two points which had been pressed in the court of appeal below were urged before the Bench also. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, which will be more fully dealt with hereafter in my judgment, in regard to the first point there appeared to be a conflict between the views taken in two Bench decisions of this court in Patto Kumari v. Upendra Nath Ghosh, 4 Pat LJ 265 = (AIR 1919 Pat 93) and Lakhmir Singh v. Union of India. AIR 1957 Pat 633. THE second point appeared to be of considerable importance, and their Lordships were pleased to direct by their order dated 15th of March, 1967, that the records of this case be placed before my Lord the Chief Justice for referring it to a Full Bench. THE Division Bench formulated the following two points for reference to the Full Bench: