JUDGMENT
B.P. Singh, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh dated 11th March, 1980 in Title Appeal No. 19/6 of 1978-79 whereby the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Sadar, Hazaribagh, dated 29-1-79 in Title Suit No. 16/73, The trial court as well as the appellate court have upheld the plea of the respondent-plaintiff who is the landlord of the suit premises that the appellant/ defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent from December, 1960 onwards.
2. The case of the respondent/landlord was that the appellant/ defendant was a monthly tenant in the suit premises of which the monthly rental was Rs. 35. The appellant paid rent till November, 1969, but, thereafter, defaulted in payment of rent. The appellant did not pay rent for the month of December, 1969 and thereafter. In this view of the matter, the respondent/landlord terminated his tenancy by issuance of a registered notice dated 27-5-72 whereby the tenancy stood terminated w.e.f. 30th June, 1972 and the appellant/tenant was requested to deliver possession of the suit premises to the respondent/landlord on 1-7-72. The appellant/tenant refused to accept the notice and also did not give up vacant possession of the suit premises. This necessitated filing of the instant suit for his eviction. The suit was filed on 31-1-73.
3. The courts below have concurrently found that the appellant is a defaulter and defaulted in the payment of rent from the month of December, 1969 onwards. The finding is a pure finding of fact and cannot be interfered with in this second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant also did not make any submission on the question of default. He urged only one submission before me, a legal submission, that the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (in short to be stated as the Act) did not apply to the suit premises and, therefore, no suit for eviction could be filed by the landlord under the provisions of that Act. To appreciate the submission, the relevant facts relating to the applicability of the Act to Cantonment areas may be stated.
4. It is not in dispute that the suit premises is locate within the Ramgarh Cantonment area. The Act which was promulgated in the year 1947 being Bihar Act III of 1947 applied only to the local areas specified in the Schedule. This did not include the Ramgarh Cantonment Area. The Act as originally enacted was to remain in force up to and including a particular date. But, by various amending Acts, that date was extended from time to time and the date was extended from 14th March, 1954 to 31st March, 1958 and then 31st March, 1961. Even thereafter by the amendment Act, 1960 it was extended up to 31st of March, 1966 and thereafter by the Amendment Act of 1965 (Bihar Act VI of 1966) Sub-section (3) of Section 1 provided that the Act shall remain in force up to the 31st of March, 1971.
5. The Central Government in exercise of power conferred by Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 (Act 46 of 1957) extended to the Cantonments of the State of Bihar, the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act III of 1947) as in force in the State of Bihar from the date of the notification with certain modifications. These modifications are not relevant for the purpose of disposal of this application. It is, however, significant to notice that Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act was not modified by the aforesaid notification. It was, therefore, submitted on behalf of the appellant that by reason of the notification issued by the Central Government under the Cantonments Act, 1947 the provisions of the Act applied to the Ramgarh Cantonment as well. It was, however, submitted that since the Act in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 was to expire on 31st March, 1971, w.e.f. 1st of April, 1971, the Act had no application to the Cantonments. This argument proceeds on the basis that since the Bihar Act as it then was, was to remain in force up to 31st of March, 1971, after that date the Act could not be made applicable to the Cantonment areas because the Act must be deemed to have lapsed after 31st of March, 1971. It was submitted that there is no subsequent notification applying the provisions of the Act to the Cantonment areas.
6. The argument assumes that the Act remained in force only up to the 31st of March, 1971 which is factually not correct. By Bihar Ordinance 26 of 1971 Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act was amended and it was provided that the Act shall remain in force up to 31st March, 1976. It will, thus, appear that by the promulgation of an Ordinance the Act was amended and the effect of the amendment was to continue the life of the Act till the 31st of March, 1976. It was, therefore, rightly contended on behalf of the respondent that the Act continued to have force and was not allowed to lapse. Since the Act did not lapse, the argument that it ceased to apply to the cantonments after 31st March, 1971 cannot be upheld. The notification issued by the Central Government under the Cantonments Act did not specify any period for the life of that notification and, therefore, the notification had effect till such time as the Act continued to have force. Consequently the suit filed in the year 1973 was covered by the provisions of the Act, the life whereof was extended till 31st of March, 1976 by Bihar Ordinance 26 of 1971. I, therefore, find no force in the submission urged on behalf of the appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if the Act did not apply, the appellant would be in a worse person. The Act protects the interest of the tenant and prohibits a court from passing decree for eviction except on any of the grounds enumerated in the Act. If the Act has no operation to the Ramgarh Cantonment area then a suit for the eviction of the appellant tenant could be filed by the landlord without disclosing any ground for his eviction and after simply terminating his tenancy by a proper notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. That had been done in the instant case. The suit was filed before a court which had the jurisdiction to pass decree for eviction. If the legal position was as contended by the appellant, there was no need for the respondent/landlord even to establish that tenant was a defaulter. It was enough that a suit for eviction had been filed after complying with the requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
It was also submitted that during the pendency of this appeal, the Act of 1982 has come into force, and the provisions thereof will apply. This he urged relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court 111. I have mentioned these submissions in fairness to the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/landlord but I do not consider it necessary to decide, these question in this appeal since I have held that the Act applied to the premises in-question.
8. In this view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.