RAI BRIJ RAJ KRISHNA AND ANOTHER versus S. K. SHAW AND BROTHERS.

Citation: [1951] 1 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 02-02-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
145 
acquiesced, during all these years in the construction 
which the Patna High Court has been placing upon the 
section from the very next year after the enactment 
of the statute. 
Having regard to the great obscurity 
in the language employed in the relevant provisions 
and the inaction of 
the 
Legislature, it is, 
in 
our 
opinion, legitimate to infer that the view expressed by 
the Patna High Court is in accord with the intention 
of the Legislature. 
The appeals fail and are dismissed with 
costs, 
only 
one set in all of them together. 
Appeals dismissed 
Agent for the appellants: Tarachand Brij Mohanlal. 
Agent for the respondent : R. C. Prasad. 
RAI BRIJ RAJ KRISHNA AND ANOTHER 
v. 
S. K. SHAW AND BROTHERS. 
(SAIYID FAZL ALI, MEHER CHAND MAHAJAN, 
MuKHERJEA and CHANDRASEKHARA ArYAR JJ.J 
Bihar Buildings (J..rau-, Rent and Eviction) Co11:trol Act (Ill 
of 1947), s., 11-0rder of Controller for eviction on the ground of 
non-payment of rent- Suit to set aside order-Jurisdiction of civil 
cour:-Q11estion rtihc:her 
there 
was 
non-payment-Finai1ty 
of 
Controller' 1 tleeision. 
Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) 
Control Act, 1947, has entrusted the Controller with a jurisdic-
tion, which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether there 
is non-payment of rent or not, as 
well as the jurisdiction, on 
finding that there is nor.-payment of rent, to order eviction of a 
tenant. Therefore, even if a Controller has wrongly decided the 
question whether there has been non-payment of rent, his order 
for eviction on the ·ground that there has been non-payment of 
rent cannot be questioned in a civil court. 
Queen v. Comm_iuroners for Special Purposes of Income·To1t 
(21 Q.B,D. 313) and Colonial Bank of Australasia v. 
W1'llah (L.R. 
S P.C. 417) relied on. 
1951 
Ramananitan Prasal 
Narayan Singh 
V• 
Mahanth Kapildeo 
RamJeeaud 
Another 
Chandrasekhara. 
Aiyar J. 
i95I 
Feb. 2. 
RaiBrij Baj 
Kris/1110 aRd 
Anothtr 
... 
.S. K. Shaw 
.and Broth111. 
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1951] 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
)UR1so1cnoN: 
Appeal from 
a 
judgment and decree of the Patna High Court dated 
25th March, 1949, in A.S. 2280 of 1948 reversing an 
appeallate decree of the Subordinate Judge ip Suit 
No. 62 of 1948 . 
Baldev 
Sahay 
(T. K. Prasad, with him) for the 
appellant. 
N. C. Chatterjee (H. f. Umrigar, with him) for the 
respondent. 
1951. February 2. 
The 
judgment of 
the Court 
was delivered by 
FAZL Au J.-This is an appeal from 
a judgment 
and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna 
reversing the appellate decree of a Subordinate 
Judge 
in a suit instituted by the respondents. The facts of 
the case are briefly these. The respondents have been 
in oceupation as a monthly tenant of several blocks of 
premises belonging to the api)cllants at a monthly 
rental of Rs. 112. The tent for the months of March, 
ApriJ and May, 1942, having £alien into arrears, they 
remitted it along with the rent for 
June, on 28th 
June, 1947, by means of two cheques. As the aJ?Pel-
lants did not accept the cheques, on 4th August, 1947, 
the respondents 
remitted the amount subsequently by 
postal money order. On 12th August, 1947, the appel-
lants, maintaining that there was non-payment of rent 
and hence the respondents were liable 
to be evicted, 
under section 11 ( 1) (a) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, 
Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 
(Bihar Act III 
of 1947), applied to the House Controller for the· evic-
tion of the respondents from the prqniscs. 
Section 11 
(l)(a) of the Act run& as follows :----. 
''Notwithstanding 
anything 
contained 
in 
any 
agreement or law to the contrary and subject to the 
provisions of section 12, where a tenant is in posses-
sion Qf any building, he shall not 
be 
liable to be 
evicted therefrom, whether in execution of .a decree or 
otherwise, except-
} 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
147 
(a) in the case of a month to month tenant, for 
non-payment of rent or breach of the conditions of the 
tenancy, or for subletting the building or any portion 
thereof without the consent of the landlod, or if he 
is an employee of the landlord occupying the building 
.as an employee, on his ceasing to be in such employ-
ment;" 
On 30th August, 
1947, 
the. 
respondents, 
whose 
money 
had 
in the 
meantime 
been returned 
by 
the, appellants, deposited the rent up to the month of 
June in the Office of the House Controller. Notwith-
·standing 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.