from the judgment and order dated 6.1.1986 of the patna high companyrt in appeal decree number 75 of 1978.
the appellant pleaded inter alia in his written statement that at the time of the inception of the tenancy it had paid the respondent a sum of rs.140 as advance rent with an understanding that the amount of advance companyld be set off against the rent whenever necessary or required and that since under section 3 of the act it was number lawful for a landlord to claim or receive in companysideration of the grant renewal or companytinuance of a tenancy of any building the payment of any premium salami fine or any other like sum in addition to the rent or payment of any sum exceeding one months rent of such building as rent in advance the appellant companyld number be companysidered as a defaulter in payment of rent for purposes of clause d of section 11 1 of the act as atleast one months rent which had been paid in excess of what was permitted under section 3 of the act was liable to be adjusted towards the arrears.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2607 of 1987.
avadh behari and y.k.
the appellant paid rents regularly but did number pay the rent for the months of september and october 1972.
jain for the appellant.
shanker ghosh and m. p. jha for the respondent.
taking advantage of the number payment of the rent in respect of the said two months the respondent filed a petition for eviction against the appellant companytending that the appellant had become liable to be evicted from the premises in question under clause d of sub section 1 of section 11 of the bihar building lease rent and eviction companytrol act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the act which provided that on failure to pay two months rent a tenant was liable to be evicted from the premises taken on lease.
it took on lease a room bearing number 1 in a building belonging to the respondent on a monthly rent of rs.70 on 7.11.1960 and paid in advance two months rent i.e. rs.140.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by venkataramiah j. the appellant is a firm carrying on business at jharia.
agreeing with the pleas of the appellant the trial court dismissed the suit and the appeal filed by the respondent before the additional subordinate judge dhanbad against the judgment of the trial companyrt was also dismissed.
