Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Shambhu Prasad Singh and A.N.Mukharji JJ.
Manoranjan Nath Patra
Versus
Kashi Prasad Sah
Civil Revision No. 1099 of 1969 ;
Decided On : APRIL 10, 1973
BIHAR BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1947 - SEC. 11-A - RENT DEPOSIT - RATE OF RENT - DETERMINATION - COURT'S JURISDICTION - INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 11-A - RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT - SEC. 4 - ENHANCEMENT OF RENT - LEGALITY - COURT'S DUTY TO INQUIRE.
Fact of the Case:
In a suit for eviction, the landlord applied under Sec. 11-A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (the Act) for an order directing the tenant to deposit arrears of rent and current rent at the rate of Rs. 77/- per month. The tenant contested the application, claiming that the enhanced rent was illegal and that he had paid rent at a lower rate of Rs. 31/- per month. The court below directed the tenant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 77/- per month, failing which his defense against eviction would be struck out.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the court below erred in directing the tenant to deposit rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 77/- per month without inquiring into the legality of the enhancement. The court held that Sec. 11-A of the Act must be read subject to other provisions of the Act, including Sec. 4, which prohibits the landlord from increasing rent except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The court held that the court below should have inquired into whether the enhanced rent was lawful under Sec. 4 before directing the tenant to deposit rent at that rate.
Issues: 1. Whether the court below erred in directing the tenant to deposit rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 77/- per month without inquiring into the legality of the enhancement. 2. Whether Sec. 11-A of the Act must be read subject to other provisions of the Act, including Sec. 4.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the court below erred in directing the tenant to deposit rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 77/- per month without inquiring into the legality of the enhancement. The court held that Sec. 11-A of the Act must be read subject to other provisions of the Act, including Sec. 4, which prohibits the landlord from increasing rent except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The court held that the court below should have inquired into whether the enhanced rent was lawful under Sec. 4 before directing the tenant to deposit rent at that rate. 2. The court held that Sec. 11-A of the Act must be read subject to other provisions of the Act, including Sec. 4. The court held that Sec. 4 prohibits the landlord from increasing rent except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The court held that the court below should have inquired into whether the enhanced rent was lawful under Sec. 4 before directing the tenant to deposit rent at that rate.
Final Decision: The court allowed the tenant's revision application, set aside the order of the court below, and remanded the case for disposal of the application under Sec. 11-A of the Act in accordance with the observations made by the court.
Mukharji, J.
1. This application in revision under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant against an order passed on the application under Sec.11-A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) of the plaintiff directing the petitioner to pay arrears of rent from Baisakh 1373 B. S. to Bhado 1376 B. S. within 15 days from the date of the order at the rate of Rs. 77/- per month. The court below further directed the petitioner to deposit the rent for Asin 1376 B. S. and following months by 15th of the succeeding month. In case of default, either in payment of arrears of rent or of the current or future rent as directed, the defence regarding the eviction was to be struck off.
2. Eviction in the suit was claimed on the ground of non-payment of rent as also for sub-letting a portion of the premises to defendant No. 2--opposite party No. 2. According to the case of the plaintiff, the petitioner was a month to month tenant of holding No 16. ward No. 6 of Deoghar Municipality on a monthly rental of Rs. 77-. He had defaulted in payment of rent from Baisakh 1373 B. S. to Shrawan 1374 B. S. A decree for arrears of rent for this period of 16 months was also claimed,
3. The case of the petitioner in his written statement was that the plaintiff was not the sole owner of the holding in question; rather, it belonged to one Mahabir Prasad Sah who had inducted Nagendra Nath Patra in this holding on a rental of Rs. 31/- per month. Nagendra Nath Patra who was doing business assigned the same to the petitioner who was his nephew. After the death of Mahabir Prasad Sah the plaintiff and his brothers enhanced the rent to Rs. 35/- per month from 1347 B. S. In 1357 B. S. it was further enhanced to Rs. 60.00 per month and then to Rs. 72/- per month in 1357/ B. S. and ultimately it was illegally enhanced to Rs. 77/- per month. The entire rent from Baisakh 1373 B. S. to Chaitra 1374 B. S, was paid to the plaintiff in 1967. The rent for Baisakh. Jeth and Asadh of 1374 B. S. was tendered by the defendant to the plaintiffs but the latter refused to accept the same.
4. The court below has disbelieved the petitioners case of payment of rent from Baisakh 1373 B. S. to Chaitra 1374 B. S. Mr. S. C. Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has raised the following points:
(i) The learned Subordinate Judge acted with material irregularity in directing the petitioner to deposit under Sec.11-A of the Act rent at Rs. 77/-iper month, the enhanced rate.
(ii) The learned Subordinate Judge was in error in directing the petitioner to deposit rent from Bhado 1374 B. S. to Bhado 1376 B. S. when the plaintiffs had not claimed the amount of rent in the plaint.
5. I propose to take up first the second contention of Mr. Ghose. Obviously there is no substance in it. A decree for rent from Baisakh 1373 B. S. to Shrawan 1374 B. S. which had fallen in arrears with the petitioner before filing of the suit was claimed in it. Rent which fell due after the institution of the suit could not have been claimed in that suit. A claim in respect of rent accruing due during the pendency of the suit had not become barred by limitation or any other law on the date of the impugned order which, it appears, was passed within three years of the institution of the suit. The petitioner cannot, therefore, successfully contend that the court below has committed any error in directing the petitioner to deposit rent for the period of the pendency of the suit.
6. The next and the only other question which arises for consideration in the case is whether the order of the court below directing the petitioner to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 77/- per month which, according to him is enhanced rent, suffers from an error of jurisdiction and can be set aside. Sec.11-A reads as follows:
"If in a suit for recovery of possession of any building the tenant contests the suit, as regards claim for ejectment,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
