IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.736 of 2010 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA – through Regional Manager, Central Bank of Inida, Regional office Mohalla Alalpatti, P.s. Laheriasarai, District Darbhanga 2. Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Branch Darbhanga, Kumar Kalyan Path Mohalla, Lalbagh, P.s. Town, District Darbhanga ….. Defendants .. Petitioners Versus SRI VIMAL CHANDRA, Son of late Dhrub Chandra Lal, Resident of Mohalla Katki Bazar, Tower chowk, Town, P.S. District Darbhanga ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Advocate For the opposite party: M/s Sukumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Abinash Kumar, Advocate ----- 7 26.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the opposite party. I.A. No. 7958 of 2010 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in preferring this civil revision. In report dated 8.9.2010, office has pointed out that there is delay of one day in preferring this civil revision. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party. In view of the reasons furnished in this interlocutory application, this Court 2 is of the opinion that the petitioners have shown sufficient ground preventing him from preferring this civil revision within time. As a result, the delay in preferring the present civil revision is condoned. This interlocutory application is allowed. Now I proceed to consider this civil revision on its own merit. This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.6.2010 passed by the Sub Judge VI, Darbhanga, in Eviction Suit No. 2 of 2008, whereby the defendants – petitioners have been directed to vacate the suit premises within sixty days. The plaintiff – opposite party has brought the suit for eviction of the defendants – petitioners from the suit premises on the ground of expiry of lease dated 9.9.2005. Short case of the parties, necessary for consideration of lis would be as follows: The plaintiff claims that the suit property is owned and possessed by him and is under the occupation of the defendants as tenant. Tenancy was initially on a month to month basis 3 and thereafter an agreement was executed between the parties for the fixed period of lease on the payment of monthly rental of Rs. 8,328.40 paisa. Thereafter the lease was mutually extended for three years commencing from 1.7.2005 to 30.6.2008. One of the terms and conditions of the lease was that upon mutual agreement between the parties the period of lease could have been extended. However, the same would have to be expressed at least thirty days prior to the date of expiry of the lease, failing which, the lease would come to an end. It is further case of the plaintiff that before expiry of the period of lease, on 12.2.2008 itself, a letter was written by him to the defendant no. 1 requesting to vacate the demised premises by 30.6.2008, which was replied by letter dated 21.2.2008 by the defendants demanding a proposal for fresh lease. They were expressing that the plaintiff would accept the guidelines framed by the Bank and as such letter was also written to the plaintiff on 11.6.2008 requesting for a new proposal of tenancy. However, the plaintiff through his 4 earlier letter had already expressed his desire for vacating the lease hold as per the terms and conditions. Further, on the date of expiry of lease deed on 30.6.2008, the defendant no. 2 had again written a letter for letting out the suit premises on enhanced rent. However, the plaintiff, considering the same as a tool for refusal to vacate the suit premises, has filed the suit for eviction under Section 11 (1) (E) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 on the ground of expiry of period of tenancy on 30th of June, 2008. The defendants-petitioners had appeared and were allowed to contest the suit. They filed written statement refuting the claim of plaintiff apart from other grounds, on the ground that the competent authority being the Central Bank of India, Regional Office, only the same could have taken such decision and is hence a necessary party. It has further been stated that though the defendants have shown a gesture by disclosing the proposed rent, but the plaintiff chose to sit tight over the matter and has made an allegation falsely against defendants that 5 they were not keen and desirous to continue as tenant. As a matter of fact, it is claimed, that the defendants were keen to continue as a tenant and are still desirous as such. It has further been stated that the relationship between the plaintiff and the bank has been very cordial, which is apparent from the undertaking given by the plaintiff on 17.8.2006. The trial court upon appreciation of the pleadings of the parties has framed altogether eight issues and upon appreciation of the materials on record including the documentary as well as oral evidence, has allowed the suit and has ordered eviction of the defendants-petitioners on the ground of expiry of the lease. The trial court has also recorded a finding on partial eviction and has held that the same would serve no purpose. I have heard the parties and perused the records of this case The entire case revolves around Ext. A, which is the deed of lease executed on 9.9.2005 and for a fixed terms tenancy, which was to expire on 30th of June 2008. 6 During the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioners has confined the same to the extent that the trial court was not correct in saying that the defendants – petitioners were not desirous for extension of the lease inasmuch as letters had been written to the plaintiff – opposite party on 21.2.2008 (Ext. 1/c) as well as on 11.6.2008 (Ext. 1/e) requesting proposal for further extension of the lease. However, the plaintiff did not come up with any proposal. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand submitted that the plaintiff – opposite party has already, by a letter dated 12.2.2008 (Ext. 1/b), has requested the defendants to vacate the premises upon expiry of the lease. Thus, the plaintiff’s desire was expressed in black and white that he was not desirous for extension of the lease. It is also a fact that as per the terms and conditions of the deed of lease that could have only be extended upon the mutual consent of the parties. That mutual consent not having been there, it cannot be said that the order for ejectment of the tenant passed by the 7 court below is incorrect. I find force in submissions raised on behalf of the plaintiff – opposite party. There is no doubt that the terms of lease expired on 30.6.2008 (Ext. a) and this is also admitted that on 12.2.2008 the plaintiff had written a letter to the defendants – petitioners for vacating the deed of lease on expiry of its terms. Even though, it is assumed that the defendants – petitioners had written a letter for sending a proposal for extension of lease to the defendants - petitioners, and even if it is assumed that the plaintiff did not reply the same, it would definitely mean that the plaintiff did not have any desire of extension of lease. Therefore, the mutual consent for extension as per terms and conditions of the lease of deed was completely lacking. In above view of the matter, learned counsel for the defendants – petitioners could not point out any error committed by the court below in passing the impugned judgment and order. As a result, this civil revision, on being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 8 However, there shall be no order as to costs. Let the lower court records be sent immediately to the court below. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)