1996 (2) TMI 587 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Order Requiring Rent Arrears Deposit Prior to Suit

Priyavarte Mehta Versus Amrendu Banerjee

The court dismissed the defendant's application, upholding the order directing the deposit of arrears of rent prior to the institution of the suit under ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the order directing the defendant to deposit arrears of rent prior to the institution of the suit under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.2. Constitutionality of Section 15 of the Act concerning the deposit of arrears of rent prior to the institution of the suit.3. Applicability of the law of limitation to the deposit of arrears of rent under Section 15 of the Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Order Directing Deposit of Arrears of Rent Prior to the Institution of the Suit:The defendant challenged the order dated 9-4-1985, directing him to deposit arrears of rent from February 1980 to January 1983 under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The plaintiff filed for eviction on grounds including default in rent payment, personal necessity, and expiry of the lease term. The court initially directed the defendant to deposit rent from February 1983 to May 1984 and current rent. Later, the plaintiff requested the deposit of arrears prior to the suit's institution, which the court ordered. The defendant contested this, citing the judgment in Raghubir v. Surya Narayan Gupta (1985 Pat LJR 346), which stated that the court had no jurisdiction to allow arrears of rent on an application under Section 15. However, this judgment was overruled by a Division Bench in Dwarika Pd. Kapri v. Smt. Chandramania Devi (1987 Pat LJR 864).2. Constitutionality of Section 15 of the Act:The defendant argued that Section 15, which allows the court to direct the tenant to deposit arrears of rent for a period prior to the institution of the suit, is arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He relied on the Division Bench judgment in Sri Ratan Lal Nai v. State of Bihar (1989 Pat LJR 1273), which declared the provision ultra vires. The court held that Article 14 ensures fairness and equality of treatment, and any arbitrary provision violates this article. However, the court found that Section 15 was enacted to protect landlords from prolonged litigation without rent payment, thus serving a reasonable and just purpose. The provision requires the court to hear both parties before ordering the deposit, ensuring fairness. Therefore, the court upheld the constitutionality of Section 15, finding it neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.3. Applicability of the Law of Limitation:The defendant contended that the period of limitation (three years) should be counted from the date of filing the application under Section 15, making the court's order to deposit arrears beyond this period impermissible. The court examined the legislative history and intent behind Section 15. It noted that the expressions 'subject to the law of limitation' and 'both before and after the institution of the suit' were added to clarify that the court could order the deposit of arrears within the limitation period. The court concluded that the limitation period applies only to arrears prior to the suit's institution, not to those accruing during the suit's pendency. The court held that the landlord's right to claim arrears during the suit is not circumscribed by the law of limitation, as this would defeat the provision's purpose. Consequently, the court found that the order to deposit arrears from February 1980 to January 1983 was within the limitation period and legally recoverable.Conclusion:The court dismissed the defendant's application, upholding the order directing the deposit of arrears of rent prior to the institution of the suit. The court affirmed the constitutionality of Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, and clarified that the law of limitation applies only to arrears before the suit's institution, not during its pendency. The judgment ensures that tenants cannot evade rent payment during prolonged litigation, balancing the interests of both landlords and tenants.