JUDGMENT S. K. Jha, J. The sole plaintiff in Title Suit No. 195/3 of 1979/84 has moved this Court against the order dated 14.6.1984 passed by the 6th Additional. Subordinate Judge, Patna. By the impugned order, the court below bas directed that further proceedings in Title Suit No. 195 of 1979 and Title Suit No. 196 of 1979 shall remain stayed pending the decision of the Rent Controller, Patna and in such circumstances no order on the petition filed on behalf of the Plaintiff-petitioner striking off the defence against ejectment in both the suits, could be passed. 2. This case has indeed a chequered career for the reasons hereinafter stated below :- The petitioner filed a suit which was registered as Title Suit No. 195 of 1979 before the learned Subordinate Judge praying for a decree for eviction of the defendants-opposite party from the suit premises and for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 17,893.28 P. The petitioner case shortly is that he is the owner of the house in Holding no. 401 which had been let out to the defendants-opposite party on a monthly rental of Rs. 550/-. The defendants paid rent for sometime up to the month of September, 1976 and there after they defaulted from October, 1976 to 16th June, 1979. The amount of dues in arrear of rent was Rs. 17,893.28 P. and the plaintiff-petitioner sought eviction from the house both on account of default in the payment of rent as web as on ground of personal necessity reasonably and in good faith, In the written statement filed by the defendants opposite party, it was asserted that two parts of the building in occupation had been separately taken. The ground floor of the house in question was taken on rent from February, 1970 on a monthly rental of Rs. 400/- per month and the plaintiff-petitioner in contravention of section 4 of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1977 enhanced the rent from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 550/- per month from February, 1975. The fair rent of the whole house was determined at Rs. 500/- per month and the defendants had filed a case for determination of the fair rent before the House' Controller on the 1st July, 1978 wherein they claimed that the fair rent should be only Rs. 250/- per month. 400/- to Rs. 550/- per month from February, 1975. The fair rent of the whole house was determined at Rs. 500/- per month and the defendants had filed a case for determination of the fair rent before the House' Controller on the 1st July, 1978 wherein they claimed that the fair rent should be only Rs. 250/- per month. Be that as it may, it has to be highlighted here that the rent last paid admittedly was Rs. 550/- per month. The further defence of the defendants-opposite party was that the petitioner had got no personal necessity for the house in question. 3. Au application was filed by the petitioner under section 13 of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1977 and the learned Subordinate Judge ordered that the defendants should deposit the rent last paid under section 13 of the said Act. The defendants did not pay the same as per older of the learned Subordinate Judge and by force of the statute the result was that the defence against ejectment should have necessarily been struck off under section 13 of that Act, but that order could not be passed due to the defendants' adopting a tactics of having further proceeding in the suit itself stayed by filing an application for determination of fair rent before the Rent Controller in B.B.C. Appeal No.6 of 1984. On 13th August, 1981, the learned Subordinate Judge after hearing the parties passed an order, in spite of the opposition of the defendants-opposite party, that a fair rent proceeding was pending and that by virtue of the settled law of this Court by a full Bench of five judges in the case of N. M. Verma vs. U.N. Singh (AIR 1978 Patna 101 : 1978 PLJR 32 ) all that the Court should see for the purpose of section 13 of the said Act was the rate at which the rent was Jast paid. I may at once mention- here that the 5 Judges' Full Bench decision in the case of N.M. Verma (supra) held that "the plain grammatical meaning of the term at a rate at which it was last paid' under section 11-A of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, J 947 which is mutatis mutandis the same as section 13 of the 1977 Act does not admit of any serious controversy". If in the given case rent has been actual1y paid by the tenant and received by the landlord at a particular rate, the same has to be accepted by the court for the limited purpose of statutory provision. It has to be kept in mind that such an order does not find that the determined rate and liability of the parties quoted above between them have to be final1y settled only by the ultimate judgment in the case. This is the reason that the landlord has not been given unqualified right to withdraw the deposited rent during the pendency of the litigation nor- can he realise the amount by execution. On an application for that purpose the Court may permit him to withdraw the amount if deposited." Therefore, it was held by the Full Bench that on an application under section 11-A of the 1947 Act corresponding to section 13 of the 1977 Act rent can be ordered to be deposited at the rate at which it was admittedly paid by the tenant before the institution of the suit even though it is higher than the original rent under the contract. This 5 Judges' Full Bench decision of this Court-still holds the field in so far as the Bihar Acts in this behalf are concerned. The defendants opposite party were directed to deposit the rent at the rate of 5501- and Rs. 650/- per month for two portions which were admittedly the rate of rent last paid by the defendants till 31st March, 1981 within 15 days of the order failing which defence was to be automatically struck off by virtue of the mandate of law. Against this order of the learned Subordinate Judge a civil revision was filed in this Court as the 1977 Act had ceased to become operative by lapes of time. In the other suit being Title Suit No. 196 of 1977 same order was passed by the court and the two cases were made analogous. The civil revision aforementioned was registered as Civil Revision no. 1372 of 1981 in this Court which was dismissed and the defendants lost in this Court as well. Then they went up before the Supreme Court of India, for special leave to appeal and the Supreme Court passed an interim order to deposit Rs. 39.044.64 P. and stayed the operation of the order. 1372 of 1981 in this Court which was dismissed and the defendants lost in this Court as well. Then they went up before the Supreme Court of India, for special leave to appeal and the Supreme Court passed an interim order to deposit Rs. 39.044.64 P. and stayed the operation of the order. The order of the Supreme Court needs to be quoted in extenso : "Issue show cause notice confined to grounds (2) & (3) of the S. L. P. on the condition that the petitioner deposit the amount of Rs. 39,044.64 P. towards the arrear of rent in the court of first instance within six weeks from today. Failure to comply with the condition shall result in dismissal of S.L.P. without further reference to the Bench. Issue notice on stay application. There shall not be stay of proceeding in suit, The learned trial Judge shall not deliver the judgment till further orders. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary minor corrections in the S.L.P. Paper Books". The special leave petition, however, was later on dismissed by the Supreme Court on 30th September, 1983 and the order passed by the Supreme Court runs thus :" The special leave petition is dismissed with the direction that the petitioner shall have the liberty to move against the eventual decree that is passed by the High Court in revision. I may atonce notice here that a controversy has arisen between the parties as to what was the period for which the Supreme Court had ordered the defendants-opposits party to deposit Rs. 39,044.64P. towards the arrear of rent-whether for October, 1976 up to the date of the institution of the suit, i.e., up to the month of June, 1979 or it was towards the arrear of rent due up to March, 1981 but that is neither here nor there for the purpose of the instant case. Thereafter an application was filed by the opposite party before the trial court under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of the suit till the hearing of the fair rent proceeding before the Rent Controller. Thereafter an application was filed by the opposite party before the trial court under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of the suit till the hearing of the fair rent proceeding before the Rent Controller. The learned Subordinate Judge did not grant stay and this Court in Civil Revision No. 966 of 1982 passed an order on 27th November, 1982 that the hearing of Title Suit No.195 of 1979 should be stayed till the disposal of the B.B.C. Appeal No. 24 of 1981 pending before the District Controller of Patna. The learned single Judge placedr eliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1982 S. C. 83. He, however, did not take note of the fact that in this very case the Supreme Court had already held on 7. 12. 1981 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 2798 of 1982 directed against the judgment and order of this Court dated 7.12.1981 in Civil Revision No. 1372 of 1981 that there shall not be stay of proceedings in the suit. All that was said was that the trial Judge shall not deliver the Judgment till further order and the further ultimate order was dismissal of the special leave petition itself in this very case. Perhaps, it was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge in Civil Revision No. 966 of 1982 when he passed his order dated 27th November, 1982. Be that as it may, the rent appeal was dismissed on 28th June, 1981 and as a necessary corollary the order of stay passed by this Court automatically stood vacated on that date. It is noteworthy to quote the relevant portion of the order of B, P. Jha, J. in Civil Revision No. 966 of 1982 which runs thus :- "I stayed the hearing of the Title Suit No. 195 of 1979 till the disposal of the B.B.C. Appeal No. 24 of 1981 pending before the District Collector, Patna". 4. Nonetheless the decision of the Supreme Court on which the learned Subordinate Judge relied, namely, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 83 was dealing with a case under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 some provisions of which are entirely distinct and different from the Bihar Act. The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 specifically mentioned that the jurisdiction for eviction forum will depend upon the fair rent fixed in the case. The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 specifically mentioned that the jurisdiction for eviction forum will depend upon the fair rent fixed in the case. There is no such corresponding provision in the Bihar Act. In Bihar Act XVI of 1977 or for that matter the preceding Bihar Act III of 1947 nowhere it has been provided that the determination of the fair rent will depend upon the jurisdiction of the civil court. The Bihar Act in so far as the institution of the suit is concerned has got nothing to do-with the fair rent proceedings. As I have already stated earlier that in so far as the Bihar Act is concerned, the 5 Judges' Full Bench decision has already settled the law that all that the civil court where the suit had been instituted bas to apply its mind under section 13 of the 1977 Act as to what was the rate of rent which was last paid and not the fair rent held to be payable by the Rent Controller. Be that as it may, even after the disposal of the B.B.C. Appeal No. 24 of 1981 as directed by this Court in Civil Revision No.966 of 1982, the proceeding of the suit could not be taken up. This, again paved way for the defendants opposite party to file all application for stay of further proceeding in the title suit on the ground that the fair rent proceeding was still going on before the Controller of Buildings. The learned single Judge observed that the case before the Controller should be disposed of within two months and the suit shall remain stayed till the disposal of the application pending before the Rent Controller. Again the same decision of the Supreme Court aforementioned was relied upon and the attention on the distinction between the Karnataka Act and the Bihar Act was not pointed out. In any event B.B.C. Case No. 257 of 1978 was disposed of by the Controller of Building determining the fair rent of the• house and ordered that the fair rent of the building was Rs. 4092/- as on 10.2.1983. In any event B.B.C. Case No. 257 of 1978 was disposed of by the Controller of Building determining the fair rent of the• house and ordered that the fair rent of the building was Rs. 4092/- as on 10.2.1983. The matter came up in revision, even then after the Rent Controller had fixed fair rent as the opposite party again moved this Court in Civil Revision No.1764 of 1983 and the order of the learned single Judge S. S. Hasan, J. passed in that case was also complied with. The petitioner then filed an application that the defendant had not deposited the rent as directed by the Court on 13th August, 1981 and the defence against ejectment should be struck off. Again, it seems, obviously by way of dialatory tactics a petition was filed by the defendants under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure renewing the prayer for staying further proceeding in the case as the order of the House Controller had been appealed against by them. The learned Subordinate Judge by misreading the order passed in Civil Revision No. 17154 of 1983 held that this Court had not stayed the further proceeding of the suit till the disposal of the application pending before the Rent Controller in the aforementioned B.B.C. case, but it stayed the further proceeding in the suit till the disposal of the application pending before the Rent Controller by way of an appeal, which appeal resulted in a remand. Indeed, great deal of confusion has been created in this case mostly on account of the conduct of defencants-opposite party by repeatedly pressing into service in their aid the decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 83. Be that as it may, on wrong construction of the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 966 of 1982 and Civil Revision No. 1764 of 1983, the learned Subordinate Judge has directed that the suit shall remain pending till the entire proceeding regarding the determination of the fair rent was finally decided between the parties be it ad-inf nitum (underlining is mine for the sake of emphasis). It is against this order of stay that the plaintiff-petitioner has come up in revision to this Court. It is against this order of stay that the plaintiff-petitioner has come up in revision to this Court. Learned counsel were at loggerheads as to what had transpired even after 14.6.1984, the date of the impugned order but I am ur.c0ncerned with regard to those matters and deliberately refrain myself from going into those questions as they have no relevance for the purpose. I have narrated the facts so elaborately merely in order to highlight the mala fide on the part of the defendants-opposite party in protracting the litigation in the civil suit, unconscious of the fact that the Karnataka Rent Control Act and the Bihar Rent Control Act were quite different from each other for the purpose of the suit and the decision of the Supreme Court (A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 83) would not be pressed into service at any stage. It is high time now to put an end to this sort of delaying tactics on the part of the defendants-opposite party. Even assuming that the previous orders were justified. although in my opinion they were Dot at all justified, the impugned order, holding that the further proceeding in both the suits (Title Suit No. 195 of 1977 and 196 of 1977) shall remain stayed so long as a fresh appeal against the order of the House Controller which has been passed after B.B.C. Case No. 257 of 1978 during the pendency of the appeal therefrom in B.B.C. Appeal. No.6 of 1984, is wholly without jurisdiction. The least can be said is that the court below has acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order which, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice against the petitioner as also an irreparable injury in the circumstances would, cause to the petitioner. The court below was kept in complete darkness about the order of the Supreme Court itself in special leave petition (already earlier mentioned) which arose out of this very suit that in express terms the Supreme Court had said that further proceeding in the court below shall not remain stayed. 5. The court below was kept in complete darkness about the order of the Supreme Court itself in special leave petition (already earlier mentioned) which arose out of this very suit that in express terms the Supreme Court had said that further proceeding in the court below shall not remain stayed. 5. I am, therefore, constrained to allow, this application and set aside the impugned order and direct that further proceedings in the title suits aforementioned shall not remain stayed and the court below is further directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the petition filed by the petitioner under section 13 of the 1977 Act which has been perpetuated by section 15 of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1982 (Bihar Act IV of 1983 ) with a partial modification-and that modification too is in favour of the petitioner and not against him. Since the proceedings aforementioned have been languishing since 1979, it is high time that such petty matters be permitted to hang fire any further. The sooner the cases are disposed of the better for all concerned. I accordingly direct that the court below shall after passing appropriate orders under Section 13 of the Act of 1977 only in so far as it has been perpetuated by section 15 of the 1982 Act and after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties, dispose of the suit themselves before the 20th December. 1986. In the mean time if the petitioner is so advised and he so chooses, he shall be at liberty to press the application under section 13 already pending in the court below as soon as possible preferably within a period of 3 weeks from today. Since the learned counsel for the parties concerned are present in the Court-room orders need not be communicated to the Client by the court as the counsel themselves will inform their clients accordingly. With the aforesaid directions and observations the application is allowed with costs. In the instant case', an exemplary cost should be awarded, but taking a lenient view of the matter, I direct the' defendants-opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.250/- only towards the costs of this civil revision application. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the court below forthwith.