- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the' order dated 19.12.2001 passed in Title Suit No. 11 of 2001, by Sub -Judge -I, Khunti, whereby the learned Sub -Judge refused the prayer made under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) PLAINTIFF -appellant had filed the aforesaid suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is a month to month tenant of the disputed premises and also for restraining the respondent -defendant permanently from dispossessing or creating any hindrance in order to dispossess the plaintiff -appellant from the suit land. Shortly stated the case of the plaintiff is that he had obtained a licence from the Chief Controller (Explosive) Government of India for transportation, distribution and storage of the explosive and he had taken four Magazines from the defendant -respondent at the rental of Rs. 2000/ - each, per month; out of them three Magazines were taken with effect from 1.11.1980 to 31.10.1985 for five years on lease (Patta). Thereafter, the period of the said leases expired and subsequently the same was renewed for 5 years and thereafter again it was renewed for 10 years, which expired on 31.10.2001. The 4th Magazine was taken for 5 years on 1.2.1989 at rental of Rs. 2000/ - per month, which also expired on 1.2.1993 that lease was extended for further five years and that also lapsed on 1 .2.1999 then after expiry of the lease in order to dispossess the plaintiff -appellant from those Magazines, the defendant -respondent are creating problem by making trench, ploughing etc. on the way which reaches to the Magazines. Besides that the plaintiff -appellant was also being threatened by the defendant through criminals. The further case of the plaintiff -appellant is that defendant knew that the deed of lease was not registered and, therefore, in the eyes of law it was not admissible as a deed of lease. Yet for the purpose of record the month to month tenancy between plaintiff and defendant was given in form of lease and the lease period was to be extended, though, in fact, it was not a deed of lease, rather it was an agreement of the tenancy between the parties. The plaintiff -appellant further stated that he had been paying the rent regularly month to month and even after the filing of the suit and he has tendered the rent through cheque and the defendant has got it encashed. The floor of the house of Magazine is a pucca, which is used for storage of the Magazine and, therefore, it falls within the definition of building and, therefore, the provisions of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 will apply and, therefore only under section 11 of the said Act the defendant can evict the plaintiff and not before that.
(3.) THE defendant -respondent had appeared and admitted that all the four Magazines were of the defendant, but all those were given to the appellant -plaintiff for a fixed period of rent. It is also admitted that the period of the agreement expired and, thereafter, there has been no renewal. It was further stated that as per one 6f the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff had to obtain a licence and to use that licence only for the storage and distribution of the explosive and the premises will not be used for any other purpose.;