- (1.) This Civil Revision has been directed against the Judgment dated 05.05.2008, passed by Additional Munsif-III, Ranchi and Decree signed on 14.05.2008, in connection with Title Eviction Suit No. 54/2001 by which the Suit filed by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 has been decreed in view of the provisions contained under Section 11(1)(e) read with Section 14 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act' in short) and the petitioner has been directed to vacate the suit premises within three months from the date of Judgment failing which he shall be liable to be evicted with due process of Court. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred as 'plaintiffs') filed Title Eviction Suit No. 54/2001 on 24.12.2001 for (A) a decree for ejectment of petitioner (hereinafter referred as 'defendant No. V) from the suit premises and the plaintiffs be put in khas possession over the same; (B) Relief for cost of the Suit; and (C) For a decree for such other renef or reliefs if any, that the plaintiffs may be found entitled to. The plaintiffs have made out a case that the defendant No. 1 was inducted as a tenant for a fixed period of 15 years, ending on 28.02.2001 and for that Md. Qurban Hussain Hawari and his two brothers namely Talib Hussain Hawari (now deceased) and Md. Khalil Hussain Hawari (Proforma defendant No. 2)/Opposite Party No. 4 had executed lease deed in favour of the defendant No. 1 in respect of one shop room detailed in schedule of the plaint. Md. Qurban Hussain Hawari (Plaintiff No. 1), Sajjad Hussain Hawari and Md. Shamshul Hoda Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 respectively (both sons of Late Talib Hussain Hawari), have filed the suit against the defendant No. 1 for evicting him from the suit premises after determination of the lease. Since Talib Hussain Hawari was not alive at the time of filing of the Suit, his two sons i.e. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 had filed the Suit with Plaintiff No. 1. Md. Khalil Hussain Hawari, one of the lesser was arrayed as defendant No. 2 in the suit. After determination of the lease i.e. on 28.02.2001, though there was option to renew the lease for a further period, but it was not renewed and the defendant No. 1 had not taken any step in that regard. Since lease was not renewed for further period from 01.03.2001, the defendant No. 1 incurred a liability of being evicted on the ground of expiry of period of lease as indicated under Section 11(1)(e) read with Section 14 of the Act.
(2.) The defendant No. 1 was served with a notice dated 20.06.2001 by which he was directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the Suit premises within two weeks from the date of receipt of the notice, but he did not comply the direction even after receipt of said notice. Despite service of notice and after expiry of period of lease when the defendant No. 1 has not vacated the suit premises, cause of action arose on 28.02.2001 and on the date on which the notice was served and on subsequent dates.
(3.) The defendant No. 1 appeared in the suit and filed written statement stating therein that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is false, frivolous, vexatious, not maintainable, barred by principles of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence and therefore, liable to be dismissed. No cause of action ever arose for filing the suit. It was also contended that the deed of lease is entirely illegal and invalid under the law and the same is not having legal force after 28.02.2001. In view of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, he has become month to month tenant under the said premises and the assent to continue in occupation of the suit premises was given by the defendant No. 2 - Md. Khalil Hussain Hawari who is one of the co-owner. Further averment has been made that he has started paying regular rent to defendant No. 2 and for that rent receipts have also been granted in his favour. As a matter of fact, plaintiffs were having tendency to increase the rent after interval of every two years. In that context, the defendant No. 1 was asked to pay rent to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- per month which was too high and excessive to which the defendant did not agree and, -therefore, suit has been filed on false and frivolous grounds without having any cause of action. The defendant No. 1 has given parawise reply in his written statement.;