DIGAMBAR NARAIN CHAUDHARY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TRIHUT DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution to call up and quash the orders of the Commissioner of Trihut Division and the Controller, Darbhanga, dated, respectively, the 13th January, 1956 and the 6th June, 1955, and to prohibit the opposite party from giving effect to the said orders.

(2.) This application came up for hearing before a Division Bench, and one of the questions strenuously canvassed before it was whether the Kirayanama (deed of lease,) which was not registered, was admissible in evidence. The argument presented on behalf of the opposite party landlord was that even if the Kirayanama was not signed by the landlord in breach of the provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, there would still be a valid lease for a fixed term within the meaning of Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, (Bihar Act III of 1947). This contention was based upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Om Prakash v. Addl. Commr., Patna Division, Patna,' AIR 1956 Pat 305 (A). On behalf of the tenant, however, the contention was that the expression 'lease' in Bihar Act III of 1947 has the same meaning as it has in Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, and, unless the formalities required by Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act are complied with, there will be no lease within the meaning of Bihar Act III of 1947. It was urged in this connection that the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Om Prakash above referred to was not correct and required reconsideration by a larger Bench, and the case was, therefore, referred to a Full Bench. Before I come to that question a few facts may be stated.

(3.) On the 13th January, 1954 Ganesh Gami, opposite party No. 4 let out a portion of his holding No. 75 in the town of Darbhanga to the petitioner, Digambar Narain Chaudhary, for seven months at a monthly rental of Rs. 55 and on the 30th July, 1954 served on the latter a notice through a lawyer to vacate the house on the expiration of the term of the lease. The petitioner did not vacate the house and held over even on the expiration of seven months. On the 22nd January, 1955 the landlord filed an application before the Controller under Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the grounds that the tenant had committed a breach of the conditions of the tenancy in that he had made certain additions and alternations in the building without his consent, that he was liable to eviction on the expiration of the term of the lease and that there was non-payment of rent. The tenant petitioner opposed this application and denied that there was breach of the tenancy and there was default in the payment of the rent.