PRASUN KUMAR DEB,J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (in short 'B.B.C. Act') against the judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, 1st, Jamshedpur, in Eviction suit No. 1 of 1994.
(2.) THE admitted position remains that the defendant petitioner was inducted as tenant under the plaintiff in a portion of a building situated at Sakchi within the town of Jamshedpur, details of which have been given in the schedule of the plaint for a fixed period of lease for five years commencing from 1.1.88 to 31.12.92. The said lease was registered one, which was executed on 5.4.91. The defendant was to pay Rs. 6,000/ per month as rent. There is a clause in the lease deed being clause No. 4 (ii) in the following wordings: If the lessee shall be desirous of renewing the terms and conditions hereby created on the expiration thereof and of its such desire shall give to the lesser at least six months notice in writing in that behalf before the expiration of the term hereby created then the lesser at the cost of the lessee and the lessor in equal grant to the lessee the lease of the demised premises for a further terms of five years at 25% increased on the present rent and subject to the same terms and agreement as are herein reserved and contained and a fresh lease deed will be executed and registered as per provision of law. According to the plaintiff after the expiry of the period, the lessee i.e. defendant was found not desirous of renewal and did not exercise its option for renewal by giving notice six months prior to 31.12.92 then the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises on 5.3.93. The defendant lessee under a letter requested for renewal to which a reply was sent on behalf of the plaintiff on 12.4.93 informing the lessee that there was no scope of renewal as the defendant lessee did not exercise its option before the expiry of the lease period and hence the suit was filed for eviction of the tenant on the ground of expiration of lease.
(3.) THE defendant after taking leave of the Court contested the suit by filing written statement and it is the case that on 16.10.92 before the expiration of the lease, the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff under certificate of posting informing its desire for renewal of the lease but the plaintiff did not reply to that rather on a bill being presented by the plaintiff, the defendant paid rent for the month of January, 1993, which revealed that the lease was being renewal from the side of the plaintiff. It is the further contention of the defendant that the suit premises was being occupied by the defendant since several years and on previous occasion also, there was lease being executed between the parties and always such lease was being executed on a belated date giving retrospective effect. The present lease deed although commenced from 1.1.88 but the lease deed was created on 5.4.91 which shows that as per the practice prevalent between the landlord and tenant only formalities were there regarding renewal of the lease which could have been done on subsequent dates also. In the alternative plea the defendant took the ground of holding over as contemplated under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act as on the plaintiff's consent (as the bill was being presented by the plaintiff) the defendant paid rent for the month of January, 1993 which legally meant that the lease became month to month tenant.;