4 1 have numberhesitation in saying that the deed of lease Ext.
Limited, the predecessor in title of the appellants.
The respondents companytested the application and raised several points in defence which were rejected by the learned Munsif.
The companypany had granted the lease in favour of one S.M. Ganguli who on his death was succeeded by his legal representatives.
on the disputed issues and after an elaborate trial the learned Munsif accepted the appellants case that they are the successors in interest of the lessor companypany, and the legal representatives of late N. Ganguli the original lessee companytinued as tenants under the lease after due attornment and were liable to eviction after the expiry of the lease period on 31.7.
197 1.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.12.1982 of the Patna High Court in C.R. No.
The parties differed on several questions of fact which, in view of the findings of the trial companyrt and the appellate companyrt, are number necessary to be detailed.
The parties led full evidence, both oral and documentary.
Their further case of induction of some of the respondents as sub tenants has been disbelieved and in view of the findings of fact in the case, it is number necessary to deal with this aspect number.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
There was due attornment of the tenancy and the lessees were liable to vacate the premises on 31.7.
The appellants did number accept the claim and filed before Munsif, Ranchi a case purporting to be an application under s. 12 of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Evic tion Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
On appeal by the respondents, the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi agreed with the findings of the learned Munsif on merits and companycluded in paragraph 48 of the.judg ment thus Therefore, from the facts stated above it appears that the present landlords and tenants are the heirs and successors of the original lessor and the lessee respectively.
The companyrt accordingly directed the respondents to vacate the premises.
Apart from pleading that the application under s. 12 was number maintainable and the allegations companytained therein were incorrect, the respondents also stated that the heirs of late S.N. Ganguli had formed a partnership, as a result of which a new month to month tenancy was created, and the respondents, therefore, were number liable to eviction.
9979 of 1983.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA, J. The dispute in the present appeal by special leave is in regard to certain premises in the town of Ranchi in Bihar which belongs to the appellants and in which a cinema is running.
They served a numberice on the appellants on 16.7.1971 claiming the right to companytin ue in possession after 31.7.1971 as tenants from month to month.
P. Jha for the Appellants.
P. Mukharjee for the Respondents.
The companytesting respondents have been occupying the property under a registered lease for a period of 20 years which expired on 31.7.1971.
377 of 1980 R .
That being so, according to the terms of the deed of lease Ext.
