JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Delay condoned.

Special leave granted.

2. These are landlord s appeals against the orders of the Patna High Court holding that landlord was entitled to arrears of rent under Section 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 15 is as under :

"15. Section 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, if any and the Court after giving opportunity to the parties to 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 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 the tenant to cross examine the landlord s witnesses.

(2) If in any proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) there is any dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent 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 dispute 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)."

3. 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 opt 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 benefit 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 High Court following an earlier single Judge Bench decision in Deep Narain v. Anil Kumar Sinha1, 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 v. Smt. Chandra Mania Devi2, 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 Nai v. The State of Bihar and others3, 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 empower