Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J. - (1.) THIS Civil Revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 12 -10 -2012 and decree signed on 20 -10 -2012 by the learned Addl. Munsif, X, Ranchi in connection with Eviction Title Suit No. 12 of 2003 whereby the petitioner -defendant has been directed to vacate the suit premises and hand over the peaceful and physical possession of the same to the plaintiff/opposite party within 45 days from the date of order and to pay rent for the period from 8 -8 -2002 to the date of judgment with simple interest @ 8% p.a. The petitioner -defendant has also been directed to deposit arrears of electricity bill till the date of delivery of possession of the suit premises and he shall also be liable to pay future rent till the date on which vacant peaceful and physical possession of the suit premises is handed over to the plaintiff/opposite party and accordingly decree was prepared. The case of the plaintiff/opposite party in brief is that the petitioner was inducted as tenant for a fixed period of lease commencing from 8 -8 -1997 and ending on 7 -8 -2002 in respect of one big room with 'Varandah' being portion of holding No. 1204/D of ward No. VI (24), 69 Station Road, P.S. Chutia, District -Ranchi morefully and particularly described in the schedule of the plaint on monthly rent of Rs. 2600/ - per month payable in advance by the first week of each month and the lease deed was executed on 08 -08 -1997.
(2.) IT is contended in the plaint that after expiry of the period of lease, notices were served upon the petitioner to vacate the suit premises and hand over the peaceful and physical possession of the same to the plaintiff and relief was sought under Section 11(i)(e) of the Bihar Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act. The plaintiff has also made out a case that the petitioner has failed to pay electricity bills amounting to Rs. 23,600/ - which has fallen due till June, 2006. The suit has been valued at Rs. 31,200/ - being the amount equivalent to one year rent for the purpose of eviction and for that ad valorem court fee has been paid. The petitioner -defendant though filed written statement but did not adduce evidence in support of his contention made in the written statement. In the circumstances, I do not feel desirable to re -produce the averments made by the petitioner in the written statement. The learned Addl. Munsif, X, Ranchi has framed the following issues: - - "i. Is the suit as framed is maintainable? ii. Has the Plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit? iii. Is there relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties to the suit with respect to the suit property? iv. Whether the defendant was inducted as a tenant on the basis of Registered Deed of Lease dated 08 -08 -1997 for a fixed period of five years and the tenancy come to an end in its expiry and the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree u/Sec. 11(i)(e) of the B.B. (L.R. & E) Control Act, 1982? v. To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to - and at the adjudication decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff as indicated above. The petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that plaintiff has to prove his own case and he cannot take help of weakness of the case of the plaintiff. Learned Munsif has not decided the suit in proper perspective. The finding of the Trial Court is banking on the weakness of the defendant's case and, therefore, it cannot be sustained. Furthermore, the learned Munsif has also passed a decree for arrears, pendente lite and future rent in favour of the plaintiff which is purely an illegal finding. The plaintiff has not even pleaded and prayed for grant of any decree against arrears of rent or rent pendente lite and future. Since the judgment and decree suffers with illegality that may be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party has submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue a. case which he has not made out before the Trial Court. The petitioner has filed written statement but no evidence to support the contention made in the written statement has been adduced. The plaintiff has proved his case by adducing oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiff has been examined as P.W.I and lease deed has been proved and marked as Ext. 1. Postal receipts have been marked Exts. 3, & 3(a). Acknowledgment has been marked as Ext. 4. The lease deed executed by and between the parties has not been challenged and as per the deed of lease dated 08 -08 -1997 the tenancy was created for fixed period of 5 years which ended on 07 -08 -2002. Immediately thereafter notices were served against petitioner -defendant to hand over the vacant peaceful and physical possession of the suit premises but he failed to do so which created cause of action and the suit was brought for evicting the petitioner from the suit premises. The learned Munsif has rightly addressed all the issues and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the judgment and decree needs no interference. So far as decree with regard to payment of arrears of rent and the rent pendente lite and future and the arrears of electricity bill can well be considered under the prayer (c) "any other relief or reliefs for which the plaintiff be found entitled to may be granted" and for that issue No. 5 has been framed and accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.;