Jharkhand High Court
Lalita Devi, Sanjay Khatri, Sunil Kumar ... vs Sheo Shankar Prasad Alias Jugeshwar ... on 18 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: [2006(4)JCR290(JHR)], 2006 (3) AIR JHAR R 804, (2006) 4 JCR 290 (JHA)
Author: Narendra Nath Tiwari
Bench: Narendra Nath Tiwari
JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
Page 2658
1. In this civil revision under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") the petitioners have assailed the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2006 whereby the Court below has passed a decree for eviction of the defendants-petitioners on the ground of expiry of the lease of a fixed period.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit premises was let out to the defendant by virtue of a registered agreement dated 29.07.1989 for a fixed period of 10 years commencing from 01.08.1989 and ending on 31.07.1999, on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. The defendants-tenants requested the plaintiff for renewal of the lease, for a further period of ten years, but the landlord-plaintiff refused to renew the lease and instead, filed the suit being Eviction Suit No. 10 of 1999. The tenants-petitioners contested on the ground, interalia, that the notice was sent to the plaintiff by the defendants but the plaintiff had not taken any step as contemplated under Section 18(2) of the said Act and as such the tenancy stood automatically renewed for further period and the plaintiff was not entitled for a decree of eviction on the ground of expiry of the lease. Learned Court below, on the basis of the pleadings, framed several issues. Both the parties led evidences, oral and documentary. The Trial Court, after thorough discussion of evidences and materials on record, decided almost all the issues against the defendants and held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the suit is not covered by the provisions of Section 18, rather the suit is to be disposed of under the provisions of Section 14 of the said Act. The Trial Court further held that the defendants-petitioners are liable for eviction on the expiry of the fixed period lease. Learned Court below has, thus, decreed the suit and directed the defendants-petitioners to vacate the suit premises by the impugned judgment and decree.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court below has failed to properly appreciate that the petitioners were the lessee for the fixed period and under the provisions of Section 18(1) of the said Act and though they had served a notice on the landlord-plaintiff for renewal of the lease, no step was taken by the plaintiff (landlord), as provided under Section 18(2) of the said Act. Learned Counsel submitted that the case falls within the ambit of Section 18 of the said Act, but learned Court below erroneously held that the suit comes within the provision of Section 14 of the said Act and has wrongly dealt with and decided the suit. Learned Counsel submitted that on account of the said error of law, the impugned judgment and decree is vitiated in law and is liable to be set aside.
4. Mr. P.R. Bhagat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, on the other hand submitted that the point raised in this civil revision was also raised in Page 2659 the Court below which has been dealt with in detail in the impugned judgment and on due discussion and consideration of the said point the Court below has rightly decided the said issue in favour of the plaintiff. Learned Counsel submitted that the provision of Section 18 is not at all applicable in the circumstance of this case. There was an agreement with a clause for renewal and the renewal was at the discretion of the landlord. In view of the terms of the agreement, the parties were bound by the same and in the instant case there was no question of extension of the tenancy in view of the provision under Section 18 of the said Act. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioners have deliberately filed this civil revision in order to delay the execution of the decree, though there is no legal ground for assailing the judgment and decree of the Court below.
5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and considering the impugned judgment and decree and materials on record, I find that learned Court below has discussed every aspect in detail and after thorough appraisal of the evidences and materials on record, has come to the finding that the petitioners' lease was determined after expiry of the fixed period as the lease was renewable at the option of the plaintiff and the same was not renewed. Learned Court below has discussed and considered the provisions of Sections 14 and 18 of the said Act and has rightly come to the conclusion that the instant case falls within the ambit of Section 14 of the said Act and has rightly dealt with the suit. Section 18 of the said Act is not applicable in this case, which runs as follows:
18. Extension of period limited by lease. - (1) If a tenant in possession of any building, held on a lease for a specified period, intends to extend the period limited by such lease, he may give the landlord at least a written notice of his intention to do so, and upon the delivery of such notice the said time shall subject to the provision of Section 11 be deemed to have been extended by double the period covered by the original lease subject to a maximum of one year only.
(2) Where the landlord to whom notice has been given under Sub-section (1) wishes to object to the extension demanded by the tenant on one or more of the grounds Mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 11 or on the ground that the landlord has any other good and sufficient cause for terminating the lease on the expiry of period limited thereby, he may within fifteen days of the delivery of such notice, apply to the Court in that behalf and the Court after hearing the parties may terminate the lease or extend the same for such period as it deems proper in the circumstances;
Provided that the tenant shall not in any case be allowed to remain in possession of the building beyond the period permissible under Sub-section (1).
(3) If the tenant fails to vacate the building on the termination of lease or as the case may be on the expiry of the period fixed by the court under Sub-section (2), the Court shall on an application by the landlord, pass an order for ejectment, which shall be executed as a decree and may further order that the tenant shall pay to the landlord such amount as may be determined by it as daily compensation.
6. From bare reading of the said provision, it is clear the provision is not applicable in the case of concluded agreement for renewal at the option of the landlord. The Court below has considered the said provision and has rightly held that the case of Page 2660 the plaintiff-respondent comes within the ambit of Section 14. I, therefore, find no substance in the ground taken by the petitioner in this civil revision application. The petitioners failed to point out any error/illegality in the judgment and decree of the Court below warranting any intervention by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction under provisions of Section 14(8) of the said Act. This civil revision application is, accordingly, dismissed.