MAHENDRA PRASAD GUPTA AND OTHERS Vs. SITARAM SINGHANIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioners pray for the quashing of the order of the Subordinate Judge, Bhagalpur, copy whereof is Annexure '3' to this writ application. This order has been passed in the purported exercise of powers under Sec. 15(3) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". Under the impugned order the petitioners were directed to vacate the disputed premises within 60 days of the order. Compensation by way of damages was also ordered. The relevant facts may now be shortly stated. On 15.12.1943 one Nirmal Chandra Guha leased cut the premises in question for five years. Before the expiry of the said period of lease, N.C. Guha sold the holding in question to Paliram Singhania, who purchased in the names of his two sons. On 10.12.46 there was a fresh lease between the purchasers aforesaid and petitioner No. 1 and his two brothers for a period of eleven years. On 18.10.57 a fresh lease was executed for a period of eleven years. On 14.11.68 an application was filed by the lessors under Sec. 15(2) of the Act before the Munsif, 2nd Court, Bhagalpur, praying that the lease be terminated after 30.11.68. This gave rise to Miscellaneous Case No. 206 of 1968. While the said miscellaneous case was pending, a fresh lease was executed between the parties on 5.3.1969. This was also for a period of even years with a renewal clause reference whereto shall be made later. On 14.3.69 on an application filed by the parties before the learned Munsif, the following order was passed:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the application before the Learned Subordinate Judge was misconceived and the learned subordinate Judge had no power or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. In order to appreciate the argument, it would be necessary to refer to Sec. 15 of the Act, which is as follows:

(3.) In the instant case it is clear that the tenants had not given any written notice, as envisaged under Sec. 15(1), to the landlord for extension of the period of lease. A clear averment to that effect has been made in the writ application but it has been denied in the counter -affidavit that has been filed in this Court. It would be proper to consider whether the contention raised by the petitioners on this aspect of the matter is correct.