Judgment 1. This is a second appeal on behalf of the defendant-tenant. A suit for eviction was filed against him from a house situate in the town of Jamshedpur on the ground of default in payment of the monthly rent for a period of over two months. The defence which has been pressed in support of this appeal set up by the appellant was that the original rate of rent of Rs. 60.00 per month was enhanced to Rs. 70.00 and which was illegal in view of Sec. 4 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (briefly the Act). It is not disputed that even this increased amount of Rs. 10.00 if adjusted towards the arrears in question, it would not satisfy the entire amount and the defendant would, still be a defaulter for the statutory period of two months within the meaning of Sec.11 (1) (d) of the Act. I do not, therefore, find any substance in this contention. 2. Mr. J.C. Sinha, learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal, however, urged two other points in this Court; firstly that the suit being a simple suit for eviction, i.e. in which no arrears of rent having been claimed, the claim of arrears became barred under the provisions of Order II, Rule 2 of the Cods of Civil Procedure and were thus not lawfully payable. Learned counsel contended that the `default contemplated under S.11 (1) (d) of the Act was "where the amount of two months rent lawfully payable by the tenant and due from him, is in arrears ............ " In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon a Bench decision of this Court in Seshadhar Das V/s. Harihar Prasad, ( AIR 1973 Pat 361 ). Shambhu Prasad Singh, J. who delivered the judgment for the Bench, no doubt, had taken such a view, but this Bench decision has been expressly overruled in Ram Nandan Sharma V/s. Mt. Maya Devi, ( AIR 1975 Pat 283 ) (FB). Chief Justice Untwalia, (now in Supreme Court) has also considered this portion of the judgment of S.P. Singh, J. at page 289 of the report. I would quote the relevant portion from that judgment: "Shambhu Prasad Singh, J., if I may say so with respect, is not correct in opining in Seshadhar Dass case, ( AIR 1973 Pat 361 ) as also in Akhauri Muktashwar Pd. I would quote the relevant portion from that judgment: "Shambhu Prasad Singh, J., if I may say so with respect, is not correct in opining in Seshadhar Dass case, ( AIR 1973 Pat 361 ) as also in Akhauri Muktashwar Pd. Sinha V/s. Smt. Urmila Saran, AIR 1973 Pat 424 ), sitting with Mukharji. J. that because of the bar of Order II, Rule 2 (2) of the Code, the amount will not, be lawfully payable ............. Shambhu Prasad Singh and Mukharji JJ., did not lay down the correct law and must be over-ruled," It is not necessary, therefore, any more to discuss the merits of this point for me, Suffice it may be, to observe that in view of the clear adjudication by a Full Bench, Mr. Sinha should not have advanced this point at all. 3 The second contention raised by Mr. J.C. Sinha is that as the default in payment of rent complained of by the plaintiff was at the rate of Rs. 70.00 per month, the claim itself was unlawful and unenforceable in law. In other words, no rent lawfully payable by the appellant being in default, the appellant was not bound to accede to the demand of vacating the premises or to pay the arrears. According to him, therefore, there was no foundation for the suit, that is alleged default in payment of two months lawfully payable rent, was itself misconceived. This contention has also got no merit. It is not the case of the defendant that he ever tendered any rent at the rate of Rs. 60.00 per month to the plaintiff, the rent which was certainly lawfully payable by him, being not by Sec. 4 of the Act expressly enjoins an obligation upon a tenant when a landlord refuses to accept any rent lawfully payable to him, in respect of any building, to remit such a rent and continue to remit all subsequent rents, which become due in respect thereof, by postal money orders to the landlord (sic). Keeping in view the scheme of Sec.13, clause (d) of Sec.11 (1) of the Act advisedly provided that a tenant will be in default if he has "not lawfully remitted or deposited in accordance with Sec.13" the rent of a premises. 4. Keeping in view the scheme of Sec.13, clause (d) of Sec.11 (1) of the Act advisedly provided that a tenant will be in default if he has "not lawfully remitted or deposited in accordance with Sec.13" the rent of a premises. 4. From the above discussions, it is clear that Sec.11 (1) (d) entitles a landlord to institute a simple suit for eviction without suing for any arrears of rent. This was the nature of the present suit. The suit, as such cannot be said to be non-maintainable. As already indicated even applying the principle of Sec. 4 of the Act, the tenant was bound to go on remitting the original rent of Rs. 60.00 per month to the landlord as prescribed under Sec.13 of the Act and he having not done that, he has certainly incurred the liability contemplated under subsection (1) of Sec.11 of the Act and he is bound to be evicted. This appeal, therefore, is entirely frivolous. 5. In the result, the appeal fails. I would dismiss it with costs. Hearing fee assessed at Rs. 100.00 only.