http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: BINDESHWARY CHOUDHARY AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AJAY KUMAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/04/1997

BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T D.P. Wadhwa, J.      Delay condoned.      Special leave granted.      These are  landlord’s appeals against the orders of the Patna High  Court holding  that  landlord  was  antitled  to arrears of  rent under  Section 15  of the  Bihar  Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act. 1982 (for short the Act’) only from the  data of  institution of  the  suit  for  eviction, Section 15 in as under :      "15. Deposit  of Rent by tenants in      suits for  ejectment, -  (1) if, in      suit for  recovery of possession of      any building  the  tenant  contests      the  suit   as  regards  claim  for      ejectment.  landlord  may  move  an      application at  any  stage  of  the      suit for  order on  the  tenant  to      deposit rent  month by  month at  a      rate at  which it was last paid and      also  subject   to   the   law   of      limitation, the arrears of rent, it      any  and  the  Court  after  giving      heard  may   make  any   order  for      deposit of  rent month  by month at      such rate  as may be determined and      the arrears of rent, both of before      or after  the  institution  of  the      suit if  any and  on failure of the      tenant to  deposit the  arrears  of      rent within  fifteen  days  of  the      date of  order or  the rent at such      rate for any month by the fifteenth      day of  the next  following  month,      the Court  shall order  the defence      against ejectment  to be struck off      and the  tenant to be placed in the      same position  as  if  he  had  not      defended the claim to ejectment and      further   the Court shall not allow

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    the tenant  to  cross  examine  the      landlord’s withnesses.      (2) If  in any  proceeding referred      to in  sub-section (1) there is any      dispute as to the person or parsons      to whom  the rant  is  payable  the      Court  may  direct  the  tenant  to      deposit in Court the amount payable      by him under sub-section (1) and in      such  case   no  person   shall  be      entitled to  withdraw the amount in      deposit until the Court decides the      disoute  and  makes  an  order  for      payment of the same.      (3) if  the Court is satisfied that      any dispute  referred  to  in  sub-      section (2)  has been  raised by  a      tenant for  reasons which are false      or frivolous  the Court  may  order      the defence against the eviction to      be struck  off and proceed with the      hearing of the suit as laid down in      sub-section(1)."      Landlord filed a suit against the respondent-tenant for eviction from  a shop premises under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act which provided that premises could be pot vacated if the same were  reasonably and in good faith required by landlord for his  own occupation  or for the occupation of any person for whose banefit the premises were held by the landlord. On notice being  issued to  the tenant  and after following the procedure prescribed  the tenant was granted leave to defend the suit.  After the  tenant  filed  his  written  statement contesting the  suit the landlord moved an application under Section 15  of the  Act claiming  arrears of  rent  for  the period prior  to filing  of the  suit and  also the  current rent. This  application of  the landlord  was allowed by the subordinate Court  but on  a revision filed by the tenant in the High  Court the  said order was modified. The  following an earlier  single Judge  Bench decision  in Deep  Narain vs Anil Kumar  Sinha. (1905  BBCJ 782)  directed the  tenant to deposit the  arrears of rent only from the date of filing of the suit.  The landlord  thereafter filed  an application in the High  Court seeking  review of  the order  on the ground that the  single Judge  in following  the decision  in  Deep Narain’s case  (supra) did  not take  notice of  a  Division Bench decision of the High Court in Dwarika Prasad Kapri Vs. Smt. Chandra  Mania Devi (1987 PLJR 864) which held that the decision in Deep Narain’s case did not lay down good law and that the  Court could under Section 15 of the Act direct the arrears of rent even for the period prior to the institution of the  suit to  be deposited  under Section  15 of the Act. Thereafter it  appears that  in the  case of  Shri Ratan Lal Nain’s vs.  The State  of Bihar and others (1989 PLJR 1273 = AIR 1970 Patna 107) another Division Bench of the High Court declared Section 15 of the Act as being violative of Article 14 of  the Constitution in so far as  it empowered the court to order deposit of arrears of rent for the  period prior to the institution  of the  suit for  ejectment  of  a  tenant. Considering the  Bench decision  in Ratan  Lal   Nai’s  case (supra) the  learned single  judge did  not think  it fit to review his  earlier order  whereunder he   had  modified the order of  the Subordinate  Court  and  directed  payment  of arrears of  rent from  the date  of institution of suit. The application for review was, therefore. dismissed. Thus these two appeals.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    During the  pendency of  the special leave petitions in this  court  a  Full  Bench  of  the  Patna  High  Court  in Priyavarta Mehta Vs. Amrendu Banerjee (1996 (10 PLJR 732) in the interpretation  of Section  15  of the Act held that (1) the Court  could order  payment of  arrears of rent even for the period prior to the institution of the suit for eviction and (2)  the  expression  "Subject  to  law  of  limitation" applied only  with regard  to claim of arrears of rent prior to the  institution of  the suit. Nagendra Rai. J. who spoke for the  Court. in a well reasoned judgment, has observed as under:      "Thus, after  having considered the      past history  of  the  legislation,      mischief    in     the     previous      legislation, the  intention of  the      legislature in adding the aforesaid      expressions  in   Section  15.  the      purpose   and    object   of    the      provision. I  hold that  Section 15      of the  Act empowers  the Court  to      pass an  order for  arrears of rent      even prior  to the  institution  of      the suit for a period not barred by      limitation as  well as  for arrears      of rent  and rent by month to month      during the  pendency of  the  suit.      The   expression "subject to law of      limitation"   applies   only   with      regard to  claim of arrears of rent      prior to  the  institution  of  the      suit. The claim for arrears of rent      during the pendency of  the suit is      not controlled  on circumscribed by      period of limitation."      At this  stage we  may also  note the Bench decision of the High Court in Ratan Lal Nai’s case (supra). In this case the bench  held that  Section 15  of the Act in so far as it empowered the  court to order for the deposit of the arrears of rent  for the  period prior  to the institution of a suit for ejectment  of the  tenant was  ultra  vires  the  powers conferred on  the State  Legislature. As to how it was ultra vires the Judgment proceeded as under:      "A suit for eviction on one or more      than are  of the grounds enumerated      in Sail  of the Act is a suit which      may besides the relief of ejectment      of the tenant include the relief of      arrears of  rent. A  tenant may  in      such a  suit raise  defence against      ejectment  and   also  contest  the      Claim of  any money  decree. A Suit      for arrears  of rent only cannot of      allowed to  include any relief with      respect to  any  claim  of  arrears      prior to  the period of limitation.      It will  always be possible for the      Plaintiff landlord  to  apply under      S.15 of  the  Act  for  deposit  of      arrears  of  rent  in  a  suit  for      eviction of  the  tenant  in  which      besides the  relief of ejectment of      the tenant  relief  of  arrears  of      rent is  also asked  for unless the      words "of before the institution of      the  suit"   in  Section   15  with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    respect of  the arrears of rent are      qualified by  the words  not barred      by  limitation.   Thus  before  any      decree  for   arrears  of  rent  is      granted by  the court  the landlord      may achieve  the object of claiming      arrears    already     barred    by      limitation. Even  with  respect  to      arrears falling  within the  period      of  limitation  a  tenant-defendant      may successfully  demonstrate  that      he has no liability, that he can do      while  contesting   the  claim   of      arrears rent  in the  suit. It will      be unfair, therefore, to grant only      on  a   prima  facie  determination      arrears before  the institution  of      the suit to the landlord as the Act      has got  no provision  to get  such      arrears of  rent  realised  by  the      landlord under  Section 15  of  the      Act recovered  from the Landlord. A      provision of  law which  is striken      by arbitrariness  is hit by Article      14 of  the Constitution  of  India.      The provision  in Section  15  that      the court may order for the deposit      of the arrears of rent prior to the      institution of the suit, therefore,      is ultra vires."      The Act as the preamble shows is an Act to regulate the letting of  buildings and  the rent of such buildings and to prevent unreasonable  eviction  of  tenants  therefrom.  The purpose of  the Act  is to avoid hardship to the tenants due to  paucity   of  accommodation  and  also  save  them  from exploitation by  the landlords  charging premium  and higher rents (See Sections 3-B). At the same time a duty is cast on the tenant  to pay rent to the landlord regularly so long he is entitled  to protection  from  ejectment  under  the  Act except on  the grounds  specified  thereunder.  One  of  the essential elements of lease is rent payable by the tenant to the landlord.  Under Section  19 of  the Act when a landlord refuses to  accept any  rent lawfully  payable to  him by  a tenant in respect of any building, the tenant may remit such rent and   continue  to  remit  any  subsequent  rent  which becomes due  in respect  of such  building, by  postal money order to  the landlord.  At this  stage we  may  also  refer Section 16  of the  Act which  requires deposit  of rent  as determined by  the Controller  during the pendency of appeal or revision.  Under this Section the appellate or revisional authority may require the tenant to pay the rent at the rate fixed by  the Controller month to month by the fifteenth day of the  following month.  together  with  arrears,  if  any, Section 16  does not talk of arrears arising only during the pendency of  the proceedings.  In the present case before us we do  not find  that there is any ambiguity in the language of Section  15. Under this section the Court can require the tenant to  pay all  the arrears  of rent even for the period prior to  the institution  of the suit subject to the law of limitation. It  is the  duty  of  the  tenant  to  pay  rent regularly to  the landlord  when he is enjoying the security of tenure  under the rent restrictions laws. Considering the whole aspect of the matter. we are of the view that when the expression "subject  to law  of Limitation" has been used in Section 15  it applies to the recovery of arrears of rent as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

on the  date of  institution of  suit. The Full Bench of the Patna High  Court in  Priyavarta Mehta’s  case has  taken  a correct  view  of  the  matter.  We  find  it  difficult  to appreciate the  reasoning advanced  by the Division Bench in the Case  of Ratan  Lal Nai  (supra) holding that Section 15 suffers from  the Vice  of arbitrariness  and is ultra vires the powers of the state Legislature.      These appeals  are accordingly  allowed. the  orders of the High  Court are  set aside  and that  of the Subordinate Court upheld. There will be no order as to Costs.