Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1983 DIGILAW 275 (PAT)

Mohammad Shah Alam v. Abdul Hamid

1983-09-30

ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA

body1983
Judgment Ashwini Kumar Sinha, J. 1. This application by the defendant is directed against the order dated 1st October, 1981, passed by the Munsif, Frst Court, Bhagalpur, in Title Suit No. 59 of 1979 directing the defendant-petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent from the date of institution of the suit and current rental the rate of Rs. 110-00 per month under Sec.13 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The plaintiff opposite party filed Title Suit No. 59 of 1979 in the Court of Munsif I, Bhagalpur, against the defendant-petitioner fer a decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises with fixtures and furniture and also for a decree of Rs. 927 as arrears of rent with interest for the period January, 1978, to January, 1979 and also for Rs. 771-70 as rent with interest for the furniture and fixtures for the said period. 3. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted. On 10.2.1981, the plaintiff opposite party filed a petition under Sec.13 of the Act and prayed to the Court for a direction to the defendant-petitioner to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs 110-00 per month (Rs. 60-00 as rent for the premises and Rs. 50-00 as rent for the fixtures and furniture) from the month of January, 1978, and also directing the defendant to go on paying the current rent at that rate. The defendant-petitioner filed a rejoinder thereto on 26.3.1981 stating therein that the rent of the premises was only Rs. 60-00 per month and so the prayer for deposit of rent at the rate of Rs. 110-00 could not be allowed in law as it would be contrary to the provisions of the Act. In the rejoinder the defendant-petitioner himself stated that the plaintiff has been realising Rs. 50-00 in excess of the monthly rental since January, 1974 up to October 1978 According to the defendant, he has been paying rent at the rate of Rs. 110-00 under an assurance that the excess of Rs. 50-00 was to remain in advance deposit with the plaintiff by way of security. The case of the defendant was that no furniture or fixtures, whatsoever, of any kind was ever supplied to the suit premises or to the defendant-petitioner and hence the realisation of Rs. 110-00 under an assurance that the excess of Rs. 50-00 was to remain in advance deposit with the plaintiff by way of security. The case of the defendant was that no furniture or fixtures, whatsoever, of any kind was ever supplied to the suit premises or to the defendant-petitioner and hence the realisation of Rs. 50-00 per month in excess of the monthly rental was wholly illegal According to the defendant, if the amount which is said to be in excess payment is adjusted, there would be no arrears. 4. The learned Munsif by the impugned order has held as follows: Heard both the sides. The learned lawyer on behalf of the defendant filed two rent receipts which clearly goes to show that the defendant is paying Rs. 60 as rent and Rs. 50 as rent for fixtures and furniture. It is clearly mentioned in W.S. vide para 7 that the defendant was paying a total sum of Rs. 110 in good faith. On consideration of the petition, rejoinder and W.S. filed on behalf of defendant I order defendant to pay the arrears of rent from the date of institution of the suit and current rent at Rs. 110.00 i.e. Rs. 60.00 rent and Rs. 50.00 rent for fixture and furniture per month, within 15 days from today failing which his defence will be struck off and current rent will be payable by the 15th of each following month. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioner has argued that according to the plaintiffs own case, the rent for the suit premises was only Rs. 60 and Rs. 50 was the rental for fixtures and furniture and, therefore, in law the Court below has gone wrong in directing the petitioner to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 110 per month. Admittedly the defendant has been paying rent at the rate ofRs. 110 per month, but his contention is that Rs. 50 out of that Rs. 110 is rent for fixtures and furniture, Therefore this cannot be included in the word "rent" for the building, and in that view of the matter, on the admitted case of the plaintiff, the order passed by the Court below is wholly illegal. 6. 110 per month, but his contention is that Rs. 50 out of that Rs. 110 is rent for fixtures and furniture, Therefore this cannot be included in the word "rent" for the building, and in that view of the matter, on the admitted case of the plaintiff, the order passed by the Court below is wholly illegal. 6. Sec.13 of the Act reads as follows: If in a suit for recovery of possession of any building the tenant contests the suit, as regards claim for ejectment, the landlord may make an application at any stage of the suit for order on the tenant to deposit month by month rent at a rate at which it was last paid and also the arrears of rent, if any, and the Court, after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, may make an order for deposit of rent at such rate as may be determined month by month and the arrears of rent, if any, and on failure of the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within fifteen days of the date of the order of the rent at such rate for any month by the fifteenth day of the next following month, the Court shall order the defence against ejectment to be struck out and the tenant to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended the claim to ejectment. The landlord may also apply for permission to withdraw the deposited rent without prejudice to his right to claim decree for ejectment and the Court may permit him to do so. The Court may further order recovery of cost of suit and such other compensation as may be determined by it from the tenant. The words have been underlined by me for emphasis. The word "building" has been defined in Sec.2(b) of the Act as follows: "building" means any building or hut or part of a building or hut, let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purposes and includes- (i) the garden, grounds, and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to such building or hut or part of such building or hut; and (ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or hut or part of a building or hut. Thus the definition of the word "building", set out above, is in very wide terms and includes not only garden, grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to the building or hut or part of such building or hut, but also furniture supplied by the landlord for tenants use in such building or hut or part of a building or hut thus indicating that the legislature has provided for all kinds of letting. Hence it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned lawyer appearing for the defendant-petitioner. It cannot be contended that the legislature intended the provisions of the Act to have a limited application depending upon the terms which an astute landlord may impose upon the tenant and the Court has to give them the widest application possible within the term of the statute. Having these considerations in view, I do not think that the supply of furniture would make any difference to the application of Sec.13 of the Act in respect of the premises in question. 7 Under Sec.13 of the Act, the landlord is required to make an application at any stage of the suit for order on the tenant to deposit month by month rent at a rate at which it was last paid and also the arrears of rent, if any. The word "rent" has not been defined in the Act. Hence it must be taken to have been used in its ordinary dictionary meaning. The term "rent" is comprehensive enough to include all payments agreed by the tenant to be paid to his landlord for the use and occupation, not of the building and its appurtenants, but also furniture and other amenities agreed between the parties to be provided by and at the cost of the landlord. The conclusion is irresistible that all that is included in the term "rent" is within the purview of the Act. In view of this, I hold that there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. This Court by order dated 9.11.1981, while admitting the present application granted an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order dated 1.10.1981 passed by the Court below pending the final hearing of this application. By inadvertence, this was not incorporated in that order dated 9.11.1981, which was made clear by this Court by a subsequent order dated 17.11.1981. This Court by order dated 9.11.1981, while admitting the present application granted an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order dated 1.10.1981 passed by the Court below pending the final hearing of this application. By inadvertence, this was not incorporated in that order dated 9.11.1981, which was made clear by this Court by a subsequent order dated 17.11.1981. The defendant petitioner is, therefore, directed to deposit the entire arrears of rent from the date of institution of the suit till September, 1983, at the rate of Rs. 110 per month on or before the 15th of November, 1983, and the current rent from the month of October, 1983, at the rate of Rs. 110 per month by the 15th of the next following month, failing which his defence against ejectment shall be struck off. The land lord plaintiff opposite party shall be entitled to withdraw half of the amount deposited by the defendant petitioner as arrears of rent without offering any security and the rest of the amount shall remain in deposit with the court till disposal of the suit, for adjustment, if any. Even as against the deposit of the current rent, the plaintiff opposite party will be entitled to withdraw Rs. 60 per month out of Rs. 110 without furnishing security and the balance of the amount of the current rent shall also remain in deposit with the Court till the disposal of the suit, for adjustment, if any. 9. In the result, the application is dismissed, but without costs.