Jharkhand High Court
Awadesh Singh And Managing Committee, ... vs Rukmini Devi And Ors. on 30 July, 2002
ORDER Gurusharan Sharma, J.
1. This second appeal has been filed by defendant against eviction decree, whereas CR No. 163 of 2002 has been filed against the order passed on an application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure in course of execution of the said decree. Hence, both have been heard together and are being disposed of by common order.
2. Plaintiffs purchased house property by registered sale deed dated 4.5.1961 and let out a portion thereof on monthly rental of Rs. 88/- wherein Nehru Model School was started by local gentries. Meanwhile, persons who had approached for letting out the premises for the school lost interest and defendant who was Headmaster of the school continued in occupation of the premises and paid rent only upto July, 1975. Defendant, therefore, became liable for eviction under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). Plaintiffs also required the suit premises for their personal use and occupation for starting new business for grown up children. During pendency of the suit an order under Section 15 of the Act was passed. Pursuant to the said order, defendant deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards arrear of rent and thereafter did not deposit current and future rent and as such his defence against ejectment was struck off on 7.12.1996.
3. The suit was decreed holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Defendant was living in the suit premises with family members as tenant and was running the school. He was held to be defaulter in payment of rent.
4. Defendant thereafter preferred appeal which was also dismissed and trial Court's eviction decree was affirmed by the court of appeal below.
5. Plaintiffs-decree-holders filed Execution Case No. 1 of 1999 to execute the eviction decree, wherein Secretary on behalf of the Managing Committee of Nehru Model School filed a petition purporting to be under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 2 of 2001. The said misc. case was also dismissed by impugned order dated 21.5.2002.
6. It was not in dispute that defendant was Headmaster of the School and even after his retirement he was living in the school premises with his family members. He was running the school and members of his family were employed as teachers therein.
7. Electrical connection of the school also stood in defendant's name and on the ration card of his family address of Nehru Model School was given. He contested the eviction suit and filed first appeal and also present second appeal.
8. Both the Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact that there was default in payment of rent of the suit premises within the meaning of the Act and as such eviction decree was passed.
9. This second appeal is concluded by concurrent findings of fact. It is dismissed accordingly.
10. Managing Committee of the School neither paid any rent, nor intervened in the eviction suit nor preferred appeal against the eviction decree, if it was actually aggrieved. Managing Committee on behalf of the Nehru Model School is not claiming any title. Nothing was produced for creation of tenancy between plaintiffs and the Managing Committee of the School.
They are, therefore, bound by the eviction decree in question under Section 12 of the Act. Hence, in my opinion, Misc. Case No. 2 of 2001 was rightly dismissed. There is no merit in this revision application. It is also dismissed.