Limitation and tenant rent deposits under eviction law: pre-suit arrears are limited, but pendente lite arrears remain recoverable.

Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 was upheld as a valid, non-arbitrary measure under Article 14 because it balances tenant protection with the landlord's right to recover rent due in eviction proceedings. The Court held that arrears of rent for the period before institution of the suit may be directed to be deposited, but only to the extent they are not barred by limitation. It further held that the phrase "subject to the law of limitation" governs only pre-suit arrears and does not apply to rent accruing during the pendency of the suit, which remains recoverable without that limitation bar.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 is unconstitutional for authorising a direction to deposit arrears of rent relating to the period before institution of the suit. (ii) Whether the expression "subject to the law of limitation" in Section 15 governs arrears of rent during the pendency of the suit, and from what date limitation is to be counted.

Issue (i): Whether Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 is unconstitutional for authorising a direction to deposit arrears of rent relating to the period before institution of the suit.

Analysis: The provision was examined against Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the footing that arbitrariness would offend equality. The Court applied the presumption of constitutionality and held that the provision was enacted to balance tenant protection with the landlord's right to recover lawfully due rent during eviction litigation. It also noted that the order for deposit is made after hearing both sides and is not mechanical or oppressive. The earlier contrary view was held not to lay down the correct law.

Conclusion: Section 15 is valid and is not unconstitutional; the Court may direct deposit of arrears of rent even for the period before institution of the suit, subject to limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the expression "subject to the law of limitation" in Section 15 governs arrears of rent during the pendency of the suit, and from what date limitation is to be counted.

Analysis: Reading the provision in light of its legislative history, the Court applied purposive construction and the mischief rule. It held that the limitation clause was inserted to control only pre-suit arrears and not rent accruing during the pendency of the suit. Since the tenant can delay appearance and thereby defeat recovery if limitation were counted from the application date, the Court held that no such limitation applies to pendente lite arrears. The contrary views in the earlier decisions were rejected.

Conclusion: Limitation applies only to arrears accruing before institution of the suit. Arrears and rent during the pendency of the suit are not circumscribed by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order directing deposit of the arrears was sustained, and the revision application failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 15 authorises deposit of pre-suit arrears only to the extent they are not barred by limitation, while arrears accruing during the pendency of the suit are outside the limitation bar; the provision is constitutionally valid as a reasonable and non-arbitrary incident of eviction proceedings.

---