PADMA CHARAN SAHU Vs. KASHINATH SAHU AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful Defendant tenant in the two courts below, in the Plaintiffs -Landlord's ejectment suit, is the Appellant in this second appeal from a confirming decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, where by he affirmed the decision of the learned Munsif, First Court, Cuttack, and decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs -landlords for ejectment of the Defendant -tenant, on the facts and circumstances hereinafter stated.

(2.) THE facts, shortly stated, were these. The Defendant tenant: occupied the suit -house under a deed of registered lease dated December 22, 1944 (Ext. 2) for a period of seven years from the said date. On November 14, 1951 the Defendant -tenant gave notice, under Section 10 of the Orissa House -rent Control Act, for extension of the period of tenancy for one year. On December 21, 1951 the Defendant -tenant filed a petition (Ext. 3) before the House -rent Controller for fixation of fair and equitable rent being House rent Control Case No. 1 of 1952. On December 22, 1951 the seven years' period of the said lease expired. Thereafter, the Plaintiff landlords filed a case being House -rent Control Case No. 23 of 1952 for exemption from the provisions of Section 5, Clause (a), (which provides that the tenant shall not be liable to be ejected whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except for non -payment of rent or breach of the conditions of tenancy, on the ground that they required the suit -house for their own use and occupation, as provided in the Second proviso to Section 5. On July 7, 1952 the Plaintiffs landlords served a notice on the Defendant -tenant to quit the suit house (Ext. 1) by August 1, 1952. On August 27, 1952 the landlords filed the present suit for ejectment and for arrears of rent as claimed. On May 16, 1953 that is to say, after the ejectment suit was filed, the landlords filed before the House -rent Controller a petition, withdrawing the said House -rent Control Act Case No. 23 of 1952 for exemption, as aforesaid, on the ground that it is not necessary. On May 27, 1954 both the said House -rent Control Act Cases, namely, House -rent Control Act Case No. 1 of 1952 and the said House -rent Control Act Case No. 23 of 1952 were disposed of by an order made therein (Ext. C), whereby the rent was fixed at Rs. 35/ - per month from the date of expiry of the lease and the landlords prayer for exemption under Section 5 of the House -rent Control Act was rejected. In Rent Control Appeal No. 134 of 1954 the said order was revised by an appellate order (Ext. D) to the effect that no order of exemption under Section 501 the House -rent Control Act is necessary as the landlords had to drawn their prayer for exemption order, because the landlords in this ejectment suit took the stand that the Defendant -tenant was to be ejected on the ground of non -payment of rent.

(3.) THE trial court found that the lease was for seven years; that there was no proof of payment of rent subsequent to the expiry of the lease; that the Defendant -tenant was allowed to hold over as tenant from month to month; that the landlords' notice to quit was valid; and passed a decree for ejectment of the Defendant -tenant in favour of the Plaintiffs -landlords on December 12, 1955.