P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN,C.J. - (1.) THIS is revision filed by the defendant Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure though in the memorandum of revision, Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been invoked, but Mr. Raj Nandan Sahay, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that it is a mistake and the Revision will be Under Section 115(1) of the'Code of Civil Procedure, Ii may also be noted that if the landlord had withdrawn his claim Under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act, on the ground of default in payment of rent, the order of eviction can be one Under Section 14 of the Act. In any event, what this Court has to consider is whether the Court below was justified in ordering eviction Under Section 11 (l)(e) of the Act, based on the pleadings in the case.
(2.) THE revision was taken -up with consent of counsel for final disposal even on the delay being condoned. Both sides were heard in detail. The defendant is the petitioner. The respondent landlord filed a suit for eviction of the defendant under Section (l)(e) read with Section 1 l(l)(d) of the Act. The plaintiff pleaded that the term of the lease expired by 30.9.2000 and since it was a lease for a fixed term, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for recovery under Section ll(l)(e) of the Act on expiry of that term. He also pleaded that subsequent to July, 2000, no rent has been paid by the tenant ajid since there was a default in payment of rent, he was also entitled to a decree under Section ll(l)(d) of the Act. The defendant admitted that the last lease deed executed between the parties was for a term of eleven months and the term expired on 30.9.2000, but the tenant pleaded that subsequent to July, 2000, the landlord had refused to receive the rent tendered by him. He had sent rent by money order which has also been refused. Me was thereafter regularly sending the rent by money order and all Lhe money orders have been refused. He was continuing as a month to month tenant subsequent to the expiry of the term of the lease. He also pleaded that an advance of Rs. 30.000/ - was with the landlord and that the rent was not in arrears and he could not be evicted on the ground of default in payment of rent.
(3.) THE plaintiff, in the face of the written statement, filed a petition praying that he may be granted a decree for eviction under Section ll(l)(e) of the Act, on the admission of the defendant as contained in the written statement. He submitted that in view of the stand taken in the written statement, regarding default, he was not pursing his claim Under Section 1 l(l)(d) of the Act, on the ground of default in payment of rent. The . defendant resisted the petition by reiterating that he was continuing as a tenant from month to month subsequent to 30.9.2000 and there was no question of a decree for, eviction being passed on admission under Section -1 l(l)(e) of the Act. The trial Court, on a reading of the written statement, came to the conclusion that the written statement contained an admission that the defendant was holding on the basis of a lease for a term and the term having expired, in the light of the plea taken in the written statement, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree especially since the plaintiff gave up the claim for eviction Under Section 1 l(l)(d) of the Act. Thus a decree for eviction based on the plea in the written statement was granted. This is what is challenged in this revision.;