Back
1996 Supreme(Pat) 134
PATNA HIGH COURT
B.N.Agrawal , S.K.Homchaudhuri and Nagendra Rai JJ.
Priyavarte Mehta
Versus
Amrendu Banerjee
Civil Revision No. 818 of 1985 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 28, 1996
Headnote:Bihar Buildings (L. R. & E.) Act, 1982, Sec. 15-suit for eviction on the grounds of default, arrears of rent, personal necessity and expiry of the period of lease-Trial Court passing orders of deposit of arrears of rent for a period prior to institution of the suit-order challenged on the grounds of being arbitrary, violative of Art 14 and also barred by limitation-earlier provision considered-the term "arrears of rent" was not free from ambiguity-the perusal of the earlier and present provision it would appear that the words "subject to law of limitation" and "both before and after institution of suit" were not in earlier section-there is no lack of legislative competence-the section in clear words empowers the court to pass an order even with regard to arrears of rent prior to institution of the suit-the legislature has enacted the provision to the benefit of land lord-the order of payment of arrears of rent prior to institution of suit is not passed in a mechanical manner-the provision can not be attacked or challenged on the ground of unreasonable-ness or arbitrariness and is a valid piece of legislation and the court has power to direct the tenant to deposit the rent even prior to the institution of the suit-1987 PLJR 864 approved. 1989 PLJR 1273 not approved, 1985 PLJR 346, 1988 PLJR 532, AIR 1993 Pat 361, 1974 BBCJ 818, AIR 1978 SC 597 ref. (Paras 11, 13, 17, 19)
Bihar Buildings (L. R. & E.) Act, 1982, Sec. 15-payment of arrears of rent for the period prior to the institution of the suit-imitation-the section does not provide as to from which date the period of limitation is to be counted for the purposes of arrears of rent-provision is ambiguous-rules of interpretation has to be resorted-the legislature has incorporated expressions regarding limitation only with regard to the arrears of rent prior to institution of the suit-the right of land lord arises only after the tenant appears and contest the suit for ejectment-the order for payment of rent during the pendency of the suit for any period even beyond the period of limitation if found due is neither unjust nor oppressive to tenant-there is no rationale to the period of limitation from the date of fling of the suit-the section 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 arrears of rent and rent by month to month during pendency or the suit-it does not cause injustice to the tenant. (Paras 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 & 28)
Interpretation of statutes-intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language itself-when the words in a statutory provision are capable of bearing two or more constructions the well established rule in Heydons case has to be applied by the court-1949 2 All ER 155, AIR 1994 SC 1775, 1534 (3) Co-Rep. 7 ref. (Paras 21 & 25)
NAGENDRA RAI, J.
1. The defendant in eviction suit has filed the present revision application against the order dated 9-4-1985 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhagalpur, in Title Suit No. 46 of 1985, directing him to deposit the arrears of rent prior to theinstitution of the suit from February, 1980 to January, 1983 under Sec. 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. The plaintiff-opp. party filed the aforesaid suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent for more than two months, personal necessity, expiry of the terms of the lease and other grounds. He also prayed for a decree of Rs. 7,200/ - being the arrears of rent for the period from Feb, 1980 to January, 1983. On 15-3-1984 the plaintiif-opp. party filed a petition under Sec. 15 of the Act for payment of arrears of rent from Feb. 1980 to January 1983, as well as current. and future rent. The Court below after hearing the parties, by order dated 21-5-1984, directed the defendant-petitioner to deposit the rent from the date of filing of the suit, i.e., from Feb, 1983 to May, 1984 and also the current rent in terms of the aforesaid section. The defendant deposited the same.
3. On 29-11-1994, the plaintiff again filed a petition for a direction to the defendant-petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent prior to the institution of the suit stating therein that due to over-sight no order could be passed in respect of arrears of rent prior to the institution of the suit. A rejoinder was filed by the defendant-petitioner. The Court below, after hearing the parties, by the impugned order, has directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent for the said period.
4. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in this Court on the ground that no order for depositing the arrears of rent prior to the institution of the suit can be passed under Sec. 15 of the Act. He relied upon a judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Raghubir V. Surya Narayan Gupta, reported in 1985 Pat LJR 346 : (AIR 1986 Pat 17), wherein, it was held that the Court has got no jurisdiction to allow arrears of rent on an application under Sec. 15 of the Act. The learned single Judge hearing the present application doubted the correctness of the aforesaid decision and referred the matter to the Division Bench.
5. While the matter was pending before the Division Bench, the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge stood overruled by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dwarika Pd. Kapri alias Dwarika Prasad V/s. Smt. Chandramania Devi, reported in 1987 Pat LJR 864 : (AIR 1988 Pat 317).
6. During the hearing of the matter before the Division Bench, the petitioner contended that the provisions of Sec. 15 of the Act, which confers power upon the Court to direct the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent in relation to the period prior to the institution of the suit, is ultra vires and in support of his submission he relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Sri Ratan Lal Nai V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1989 Pat LJR 1273 : (AIR 1990 Pat 107). The Division Bench, to which two of us (B.N. Agarwal and Nagendra Rai, JJ.) were members, doubted the correctness of the law laid down in Ratan Lal Nais case (supra) and referred the matter to a larger Bench. That is how the matter has been placed before us.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed two points before this Court. Firstly, he submitted that the provision of Sec. 15 of the Act, which empowers the Court to direct the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent even for a period prior to the institution of the suit, is arbitrary, unjust and thus violative of Art, 14 of the Constitution of India. He relied upon the reasonings given in the case of Ratan Lal Nai, (AIR 1990 Pat 107) (supra) in support of this submission. Secondly, he contended that deposit of arrears of rent is subject
