IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1139 of 2006 RAJ KUMAR PRASAD Versus PRAVIN KUMAR SINGH & ORS ----------- 4 11.12.2008 No one appears on behalf of the defendant- tenant- petitioner. Plaintiff-landlord-Opposite parties are however represented by their learned counsel Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi. In this civil revision application under Section 14(8) of the B.B.C. Act, the judgment and decree of the Court below directing eviction of the petitioner does not suffer from any error inasmuch as the only issue involved therein was with regard to the expiry of the period of lease and option exercised for renewal of the lease. The Court below has gone into this aspect at a great length in paragraph nos. 6, 7 & 8 of the impugned judgment and has ultimately held that the period of lease commencing from 1st of July, 1996 for a period of five years came to an end on 30th June, 2001 and there was no valid exercise of right of renewal of the said lease. In this regard, the specific findings of fact recorded by the Court below is as follows:- ^^vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa eSa ikrk gqW fd izfroknh dks vof/k foLrkj dk fodYi gj gky esa 10 tqykbZ 2001 rd dj ysuk Fkk ysfdu mi;qZDr mfYyf[kr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij eSa ikrk gwW fd izfroknh us fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds varxZr vof/k 2 dk foLrkj ds fodYi dk bLrseky ugha fd;k gS vkSj u mldh lalwpuk oknh dks nh gS rFkk izfroknh }kjk fn0 & 14-8-2001 dks oknh dks fuxZr uksfVl iV~Vk ds vof/k foLrkj ds fodYi dk bLrseky ds :i esa foyEc ls fn;k x;k uksfVl ekuk tk;sxk rFkk ;g lalwpuk ds :i esa Lohdk;Z ugha ekuk tk;sxkA rnuqlkj] ;g fookn~;d fcUnq oknh ds i{k esa rFkk izfroknh ds fo:) fofuf'pr fd;k tkrk gSA** After the aforementioned conclusive finding of fact has been recorded and that too on scanning of the evidence, the provision under Section 18 of the B.B.C. Act had to be only noticed for determining ultimate rights of the parties. Section 18 itself provides that a tenant in possession of a building on a lease for a specified period, in order to extend the period of lease is required to give the landlord at least one month notice before the expiry of the period of lease. Admittedly, as per the findings recorded by the Court below, no such notice was given by the tenant-petitioner. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this civil revision application, being wholly misconceived, is hereby dismissed with the aforementioned observations. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)