Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. - (1.) IN this civil revision under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2006 whereby the Court below has passed a decree for eviction of the defendant -petitioner on the ground of expiry of the lease of a fixed period.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the suit premises was let out to the defendant by virtue of a registered agreement dated 11.07.1989 for a fixed period of 10 years commencing from 01.08.1989 and ending on 31.07.1999, on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/ -. The defendant -tenant requested the plaintiff for renewal of the lease, for a further period often years, but the landlord -plaintiff refused to renew the lease and instead, filed the suit being Eviction Suit No. 11. of 1999. The tenant -petitioner contested the suit on the ground, interalia, that the notice was sent to the plaintiff by the defendant but the plaintiff had not taken any step as contemplated under Section 18(2) of the said Act and as such the tenancy stood automatically renewed for further period and the plaintiff was not entitled for a decree of eviction on the ground of expiry of the lease. Learned Court below, on the basis of the pleadings, framed several issues. Both the parties led evidences, oral and documentary. The Trial Court, after thorough discussion of evidences and materials on record, decided almost all the issues against the defendant and held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the suit is not covered by the provisions of Section 18, rather the suit is to be disposed of under the provisions of Section 14 of the said Act. The Trial Court further held that the defendant -petitioner are liable for eviction on the expiry of the fixed period lease. Learned Court below has, thus, decreed the suit and directed the defendant -petitioner to vacate the suit premises by the impugned judgment and decree. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has failed to properly appreciate that the petitioner was the lessee for the fixed period and under the provisions of Section 18(1) of the said Act and though they had served a notice on the landlord -plaintiff for renewal of the lease, no step was taken by the plaintiff (landlord), as provided under Section 18(2) of the said Act. Learned Counsel submitted that the case falls within the ambit of Section 18 of the said Act, but learned Court below erroneously held that the suit comes within the provision of Section 14 of the said Act and has wrongly dealt with and decided the suit. Learned Counsel submitted that on account of the said error, the impugned judgment and decree is vitiated in law and is liable to be set aside.
(3.) MR P.R. Bhagat. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, on the other hand submitted that the point raised in this civil revision was also raised in the Court below which has been dealt with in detail in the impugned judgment and on due discussion and consideration of the said point the Court below has rightly decided the said issue in favour of the plaintiff Learned Counsel submitted that the provision of Section 18 is not at all applicable in the circumstance of this case. There was an agreement with a clause for renewal and the renewal was at the discretion of the landlord. In view of the terms of the agreement, the parties were bound by the same and in the instant case there was no question of extension of the tenancy in view of the provision under Section 18 of the said Act. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner has deliberately filed this civil revision in order to delay the execution of the decree, though there is no legal ground for assailing the judgment and decree of the Court below.;