BHOGRAJ SAO Vs. MALTI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has come up in revision under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter called 'the Act') challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment decreeing the eviction suit filed against him on the grounds of personal necessity as well as expiry of the fixed term tenancy.

(2.) Mr. Vijay Nandan Sahay, learned Counsel for the tenant -petitioner assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:

(3.) Mr. Rameshwar Prasad No. 2, learned Counsel for the plaintiff -opposite party, replies that no evidence having been brought on the record by the petitioner that no tenant can agree for a fixed term tenancy for 11 months only the suit has been correctly decreed after recording a finding that the tenancy in question was for a fixed period of 11 months only. He further submits that the finding, besides admitted case of the parties, what was leased out was a katra and not a flour mill which comes within the meaning of the word building defined under Section 2 of the Act.