LexSRI BHIMSEN GUPTA versus SRI BISHWANATH PRASAD GUPTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ ~.
)
..
SRI BHIMSEN GUPTA
A
v.
SRI BISHWANATH PRASAD GUPTA
FEBRUARY 3, 2004
[V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.H. KAPADIA, J.]
B
Bihar Buildings (lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982:
S. II {I)( d)-Default in payment of rent-Suit for eviction-Tenant' s
plea that suit could not have been filed since default in payment of rent was C
for the period beyond three years prior to institution of suit-Held, s.11 begins
with non-obstante clause-Expression used in s.11 (J)(d) is "lawfully payable"
and not "lawfully recoverable" and, therefore, the provision has nothing to
do with recove1y of arrears of rent-On the contrary s. 11 {I)( d) provides a
ground for eviction of the tenant in the eviction suit-Law of limitation bars D
the remedy of the claimant to recover the rent for the period beyond three
years prior to the institution of the suit, but that cannot be a ground for
defeating the claim of the landlord for decree of eviction on satisfaction of the
ingredients of s. ll(J){d) of the Act.
Rashik Lal and Ors. v. Shah Gokuldas, AIR (1989) SC 920, held E
ina1>plicable.
Bombay Dyeing & Manz{facturing Co. ltd. v. The State of Bombay and
Ors., AIR (1958) SC 328, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) p
No. 1001 of 2004 .
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.9.2003 of the Patna High Court
in S.A. No. 420 of 2000.
R.S. Dwivedi and Ajay Choudhary for the Petitioner.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The issue involved in this petition is; whether the plaintiff-landlord was
65
G
H
66
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2004] 2 S.C.R.
A entitled to decree of eviction in a suit filed on 5th September, 1994 on the
ground of default in payment of rent for February, 1998 and December,
1990, even though the same fell beyond the period of three years prior to the
date of the suit.
·
In the present matter the suit was filed on 5th September, 1994 for
B eviction of the tenant (petitioner herein) and for recovery of possession on
the ground of default in payment of rent under Section 11 (I )(d) of the Bihar
Buildings (Lease Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short the 'Act,
1982') as well as on the ground of personal necessity. The suit was dimissed
by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff-landlord went in appeal
C before 7th Additional District Judge, Munger who recorded the finding of
fact to the effect that the defendant-tenant had committed default for two
months namely for February, 1988 and December, 1990 which fulfilled the
requirement of Section l l(l)(d) of the said Act, 1982. This finding of fact
has been confirmed by the High Court against whiCh the tenant has come by
way of the present petition. At this stage we may clarify that the decree of
D eviction has been sustained by both the courts below on both the aforestated
grounds namely personal necessity of the landlord and willful default in
payment of rent by the tenant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before us that the landlord
cannot file a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in
E payment of rent by the tenant for the period which was more than three years
prior to the institution of the suit. He contended that such a suit was not
maintainable and, therefore, no decree could have been passed for eviction
under Section 11 (I )(d) of the said Act, 1982.
F
G
H
We do not find any merit in this argument. We quote hereinbelow
Section 11(1)(d) of the said Act, 1982:
"l I. Eviction of tenants. (I) Notwithstanding anything contained in
any contract or law to the contrary but subject to the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947), and to those of
section 18, where a tenant is in possession of any building he shall
not be liable to eviction therefrom except. in execution of a decree .
passed by the Court on one or more of the following grounds:-
(a) to (c) .......... .
(d) where the amount of two months rent, lawfully payable by the
-'
J
BHIMSEN GUPTA v. B.P. GUPTA
67
tenant and due from him is in arrears by not having been paid within A
the time fixed by contract, or in the absence of such contract, by the
last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable
or by not having been validly remitted or deposited in accordance
with section 16."
Section I I of the said Act, 1982 deals with eviction of tenants. It B
begins with non-obstante clause. Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.