Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Appellants/defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement.

They contented that the rent for the month commencing from 1st of April 1988 to July 1988 was sent through Bank Draft on the address of plaintiffs/respondents, but they refused to accept the same. It is further stated that thereafter the appellants sent the rent for the said period through money order in the month of August 1988 which also plaintiffs/ respondents refused to accept. It is stated that the appellants thereafter always sent rents of subsequent month through money- order but the same were also not accepted by the plaintiffs/respondents. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appellants are not defaulter within the meaning of Bihar Building ( Lease, Rent & /Eviction) Control, Act, 1982 ( hereinafter referred to as the BBC Act) . Thus they cannot be evicted on the ground of default. It is further stated that Ramesh Bhalla is doing business at Kolkata and Patna. He is not an unemployed person. It is further stated that Hindustan Building in which the suit premises situates is a five storied building and number of shops are vacant in the said building in which plaintiffs/respondent's son can open the electrical shop, if he so wants. It is submitted that in fact the present suit has been filed due to malafide intention as the petition filed by plaintiffs/ appellants under section 5 of BBC Act before the Rent Controller for enhancing rent , has been dismissed. Accordingly, it is stated that plaintiffs/respondents have no personal necessity of the suit premises and therefore on this ground also appellants cannot be evicted.

12. First substantial question of law Now, I am proceeding to decide first substantial questions of law framed in this appeal. It is submitted by Sri P. K. Sinha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for appellants that the learned courts below has not considered Exhibits-'D', 'D/1' and Exhibit 'H series' which show that the rents for the month of April , May, June, 1988 were sent through bank drafts which defendants refused to accept the same. It is submitted that section 11 (1)(d) of BBC Act contemplates that if the rent of two months has not been paid or have not been validly remitted then only it can be held that the tenant is in arrears of two months rent. It is submitted that Ext.-'D/1' which is extract of rent register maintained in the head office of appellant no. 1 show that rents for the month of April, May, June 1988 were remitted vide bank draft no. 264242 dated 13.4.1988 , bank draft no. 264333 dated 1.6.1988 and vide draft no. 264396 dated 15.6.1988 respectively. He further submits that Ext-' H Series' are envelopes in which the aforesaid drafts were sent, but same were returned to the appellants with endorsement of refusal made by postal peon D.W. 3 and 4. It is submitted that after the said refusal, appellants sent money order for three months in the month of August 1988 itself which was also refused. It is submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the court below, thus the finding given by the courts below on the point of default cannot be sustained.

17. Under the said circumstance, even after considering Ext.- 'D', 'D/1' and 'H' Series, the appellants have not been able to prove that the rents for the month of April, May and June 1988 were remitted within statutory time and the same were refused by the plaintiffs. Thus, the findings of the courts below that the rent for the month of April, May and June 1988 have not been remitted within the statutory time fixed under BBC Act and appellants are defaulter, does not require any interference. Thus the first substantial question of law framed hereinabove answered in negative.