RAJ KUMAR GUPTA Vs. BIRENDRA PRASAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two revision applications since common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) IN C.R. No. 40 of 2006, petitioners, who are tenants, have challenged the order dated 27.2.2006 passed by Munsif Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2002 whereby he has terminated the lease in purported exercise of power under Section 18(2) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.

(3.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Petitioners were inducted as tenants in the shop premises for a fixed period of ten years commencing from 1.5.1992 to 30.4.2002 on a monthly rent of Rs. 900/ -. A registered deed of lease was executed by three persons as co -sharers/landlords including respondents Birendra Prasad Gupta. It appears that before the expiry of period of lease petitioners sent two notices dated 28.2.2002 followed by 20.4.2002 informing the landlords about their willingness for the renewal of lease as per Clause (8) of the lease deed. However, on 18.3.2002 the respondent being one of the co -sharer/landlord filed an application purported to be under Section 18(2) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Kent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short the said Act) in the Court of Munsif, Ranchi for an order terminating the lease on the ground inter alia that the respondents required the suit premises for their own use and occupation and also for engaging his son in business. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 7/2002. On being noticed the petitioners appeared and filed their show cause stating inter alia that the application under Section 18(2) of the said Act is not maintainable in as much as petitioners -tenants have not exercised their option for extension of lease under Section 18(1) of the Act.