LAWS(PAT)-1989-5-3

JOGANDA MAL Vs. BHAGWAN MISHRA

Decided On May 02, 1989
Joganda Mal Appellant
V/S
Bhagwan Mishra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh dated 11th March, 1980 in Title Appeal No. 19/6 of 1978 -79 whereby the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Sadar, Hazaribagh, dated 29 -1 -79 in Title Suit No. 16/73, The trial court as well as the appellate court have upheld the plea of the respondent -plaintiff who is the landlord of the suit premises that the appellant/ defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent from December, 1960 onwards.

(2.) The case of the respondent/landlord was that the appellant/ defendant was a monthly tenant in the suit premises of which the monthly rental was Rs. 35. The appellant paid rent till November, 1969, but, thereafter, defaulted in payment of rent. The appellant did not pay rent for the month of December, 1969 and thereafter. In this view of the matter, the respondent/landlord terminated his tenancy by issuance of a registered notice dated 27 -5 -72 whereby the tenancy stood terminated w.e.f. 30th June, 1972 and the appellant/tenant was requested to deliver possession of the suit premises to the respondent/landlord on 1 -7 -72. The appellant/tenant refused to accept the notice and also did not give up vacant possession of the suit premises. This necessitated filing of the instant suit for his eviction. The suit was filed on 31 -1 -73.

(3.) The courts below have concurrently found that the appellant is a defaulter and defaulted in the payment of rent from the month of December, 1969 onwards. The finding is a pure finding of fact and cannot be interfered with in this second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant also did not make any submission on the question of default. He urged only one submission before me, a legal submission, that the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (in short to be stated as the Act) did not apply to the suit premises and, therefore, no suit for eviction could be filed by the landlord under the provisions of that Act. To appreciate the submission, the relevant facts relating to the applicability of the Act to Cantonment areas may be stated.