LexRAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH versus RAMESHWAR PRASAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH v. RAMESHWAR PRASAD O.CTOBER 28, 1998 (S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] Bihar Building (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982: Section 1 l(l)(e). C Rent Control and Eviction-Suit filed by landlord for eviction of tenant- Grr•und-Expiry of/ease-Trial Court rejected the objection of tenant regarding validity of lease on the ground that tenant had admitted in written statement that tenancy was for a fixed period-Eviction decree confirmed by Appellate Court as well as High Court-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held petitioner- D tenant cannot depart from the actual position which he has admitted in the trial court as well as before the first appellate Court that he had executed a registered deed of Kabuliyat-Contention that lease was not signed by both the landlord and tenant held not maintainable-Held High Court rightly confirmed the findings of the Court below that decree for eviction on the ground of expiry of lease was not liable to be interfered with. E Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 107. Lease-Creation of a valid /ease-Essential conditions-Lease signed by one party-Validity of-Merely because the document shows only the signature of one of the parties it is not enough to conclude that the non F signing party has not joined in the execution-Whether both parties have executed the agreement is a question of fact-Jn this case in the written statement the tenant did not dispute that lease was validly made-Held therefore it is not open to him to contend that instrument was not executed by both lessor and lessee. G Words and Phrases: H Execute-Meaning of Asa Ram v. Ram Kai i, AIR (1958) SC 183 and Ga on Sabha v. Jagannath Singh, (1984) All. L. J. 518, referred to. 444 - R.P. SINGH v. RAMESHWAR PRASAD 445 Satish Chand Makhan and Ors. v. Govardhan Das Byas and Ors., AIR A (1984) SC 143 and Budh Ram v. Ra/la Ram, AIR (1987) SC 2078, cited. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15042 of 1998. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.97 of the Patna High Court B in Second Appeal No. 241 of 1996. Neeraj Kr. Jain, Manish Mohan, Ms. Anita Mohan and U. S. Prasad for the Petitioner. The following Order of the Court was delivered by : Subject matter of this litigation is a shop-room. It was rented to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 90. Ownership of the building had passed from the then landlord to Smt. Indrajit Kaur who, in 1982, started the litigation c for eviction of the petitioner from the building. The landlord set up a few grounds for eviction as are envisaged in Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and D Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short 'the Bihar Act'). During pendency of the suit for eviction, ownership of the building has again been transferred and the present respondent has come into the field. After he got himself imp leaded as a plaintiff he jettisoned most of the grounds put forth in the suit for eviction and confined to the surviving ground that the period of tenancy has expired. From the trial court up to the High Court the landlord succeeded on E the said ground. This Special Leave Petition has been filed in challenge of the aforesaid decree of eviction as confirmed by the High Court. Under Section I l(J)(e) of the Bihar Act a landlord has the right to evict his tenant from a building in execution of a decree passed on the ground that the period of tenancy has expired. Petitioner tenant has adopted different F strategies to non-suit the respondent and the main among them is this: To attract the ground under Section 11 (I)( e) of the Bihar Act there should be conjunction of two conditions, first there should necessarily have been a valid lease for a specified period. Second, the aforesaid period should have expired. Petitioner contended that there was no valid lease by which any G specified period of tenancy has been fixed. The trial Court before which the aforesaid contention was raised during the time of argument spumed it down on the premise that the tenant-defendant had admitted in the written statement that the tenancy was admittedly for a fixed period of 5 years and hence he cannot be heard to argue differently. H 446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A The first appellate Court before which the same contention was repeated has repelled it for the following reasons: B c D "It is to be noted that the plaintiff respondent in para 2 of the plaint has clearl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.