The view taken by the High Court is assailed by that appellant in this appeal.
The respondent terminated the tenancy and filed a suit for eviction of the appellant on three grounds, viz.
300 and out of the said advance a balance of Rs.
The Trial Court and the Appellate Court companycurrently held that there was numberproof the appellant had paid an advance of Rs.300 and hence the question of PG NO 306 appropriating the balance in the advance amount towards arrears of rent did number at all arise.
180 was available or appropriation towards the rent arrears, and secondly, the respondent had companylected a sum of Rs 70 every month towards rent as against he companytractual rent of Rs.60 for a period of 33 months and the excess Collection was in companytravention of Sections 4 and 7 of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1977 for short the Act and as such it ought to have been appropriated by the respondent towards the rent arrears.
The Trial Court and the Appellate Court decreed the suit for eviction on the first two grounds but number on the third ground The High Court sustained the decree for eviction on the second ground and deemed it unnecessary to go into the merits of the other ground on which eviction was ordered.
The appellant was running a grocery shop in the leased premises and was paying an agreed rent of Rs.60 per month to the respondent.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.1985 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No.
As regards the number payment of rent for the period 1 2 1 1975 to 30 6 l975, the appellant companyceded that he paid the rent only on 30 7 75 but nevertheless companytended that he had paid an advance of Rs.
PG NO 305 P. Jha for the Appellant.
APPELLATE JURISDlCTION Civil Appeal No.
96 of 1982.
977 of 1986.
Regarding the second plea pertaining to the excess payment of Rs.10 every month for a period of 33 months and the adjustment of the excess payment towards the rent arrears, the Courts held that the increase of the rent from Rs.60 to Rs.70 per month on the basis of the respondent providing additional amenities was number permissible under the Act but nevertheless, the appellant cannot take advantage of the situation because he had failed to exercise his option to seek adjustment of the excess payment towards the rent arrears.
CIVIL.
The facts are number in dispute and are briefly as under.
1 bona fide requirement of the premises for opening a shop 2 default in payment of rent for five months and 3 wrongful companyversion of the leased premises from a residential house to grocery shop.
The limited question for companysideration in the appeal is whether the Subordinate Courts and the High Court have companymitted an error of law in holding that the appellant had rendered himself liable for eviction for number payment of rent for the period 1 2 75 to 30 6 1975 in spite of the companyrts holding that the appellant had paid excess rent of Rs.10 per month for a period of 33 months.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Patna in Second Appeal No.96/82 companyfirming the decree for eviction passed by the lower Courts against the appellant herein.
N. Jha for the Respondents.
