LexBINDESHWARY CHOUDHARY AND ANR. versus AJAY KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r
BINDESHWARY CHOUJ:?HARY AND ANR.
v.
AJAY KUMAR
APRIL 22, 1997
{S.C. AGRAWAL AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
A
B
Tenancy Law : Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act,
198~Secti0n 15--l..andlord filing suit against the tenant for eviction-Entit-
lement to arrears of rent-Held, 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
C
the law of limitation.
Landlord filed a suit against the respondent tenant for eviction from
a shop premises and also moved an application under Section 15 of the
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1982 claiming arrears of D
rent for the period prior to the filing of the suit and the current rent. The
· application for arrears was allowed by the Subordinate Court. On Appeal,
the High Court modified the Subordinate Court's decision and directed
the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent only from the date of filing of the
suit. Hence this appeal.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. There is no ambiguity in the language of Section 15 of the
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1982 under which the Court
can require the tenant to deposit arrears of rent even for the period prior
E
to the institution of the suit for eviction subject to the law of limitation. It F
is the duty of the tenant to pay rent regularly to the landlord when he is
enjoying the security of tenure under the rent restriction laws. (906-B-C]
2. The expression "subject to the law of limitation" used in Section
15 applies to the recovery of arrears of rent as on the date of the institution G
of the suit. (906-C]
Priyavarta Mehta v.Amrendu Banerjee, (1996) 1 PIJR 732, approved.
Ratan Lal Nai v. Sate of Bihar and Others, (1989) PWR 1273, disap·
proved.
If
901
902
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997] 3 S.C.R.
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2807-
2808 of 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.3.94/15.12.93 of the Patna
High Court in Civil Review No. 5/94 and Civil Revision No. 1551 of 1993.
B
A. Sharan and Ambika Pratap Singh for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D.P. WADHWA, J.
C
Delay condoned.
Special leave granted.
These are landlord's appeals against the orders of tht.: Patna High
Court holding that landlord was entitled to arrears of rent under Section
D 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1982 (for short
'the Act') only from the date of institution of the suit for eviction. Section
,
E
F
G
15 is 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 ejectmcnt, landlord may move an applica-
tion 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, if any and the Court
after giving opportunity to the parties lo be 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 ejcct-
ment 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 the tenant to cross examine the
landlord's witnesses.
(2) If in any proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) there is any
H
dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable
'
BIND ESH WARY CllOUDHAR Y v. AJAY KUMAR
903
the Court may direct the tenant to deposit in Court the amount A
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 dispute and makes an order for payment of the same.
(3) If the Court is satisfied that any dispute referred to in sub-sec-
tion (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).
B
Landlord filed a suit against the respondent-tenant for eviction from C
a shop premiseExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.