Judgment N.P.SINGH, J. 1. The defendant in a suit for eviction, has filed this revision application for setting aside an order directing the petitioner to deposit, during the pendency of the suit, the arrears of rent including the arrears for the months prior to the filing of the suit. 2. According to the petitioner, while exercising the power under S.15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it was not open to the court below to direct deposit of arrears of rent in respect of months prior to the institution of the suit, especially in a case where the plaintiff has not sought for a decree for arrears of rent. In support of his stand reliance was placed on a Full Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Ram Nandan Sharma V/s. Maya Devi, AIR 1975 Pat 283 . A question had arisen in the aforesaid case as to whether in exercise of the powers under S.11-A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), "the arrears of rent" is to be confined to the period after the institution of the suit or shall cover even the period to the institution of the suit. It was held that court in exercise of power under S.11-A of 1947 Act cannot direct deposit of arrears of rent in respect of period prior to the institution of the suit. 3. Sub-Sec. (1) of S.15 of the Act which is relevant, in the present case, is as follows :- "15. It was held that court in exercise of power under S.11-A of 1947 Act cannot direct deposit of arrears of rent in respect of period prior to the institution of the suit. 3. Sub-Sec. (1) of S.15 of the Act which is relevant, in the present case, is as follows :- "15. Deposit of rent by tenants in suits for ejectment.- (1) If, in a suit for recovery of possession of any building the tenant contests the suit as regards claim for ejectment, landlord may move an application at any stage of the suit for order on the tenant to deposit rent month by month at a rate at which it was last paid and also subject to the law oflimitation, the arrears of RENT, if any, and the Court after giving opportunity to the parties to be heard, may make any order for deposit of rent month by month at such rate as may be determined and the arrears of rent, both of before and after the institution of the suit if any and on failure of the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within fifteen days of the date of order or 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 off and the tenant to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended the claim to ejectment and further the Court shall not allow the tenant to cross-examine the landlords witnesses". (Emphasis added) On a plain reading, the aforesaid Sub-Sec. (1) of S.15 of the Act enables the landlord to move the Court during the pendency of the suit for an order on the tenant to deposit rent month by month at the rate at which it was last paid and also subject to the law of limitation, the arrears of rent, if any, both of before and after the institution of the suit, if any. It may be pointed out that the aforesaid expressions "subject to the law of limitation" and "both of before and after the institution of the suit" were not in S.13 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 1977 Act) which was the parallel provision to S.15 of the present Act. It may be pointed out that the aforesaid expressions "subject to the law of limitation" and "both of before and after the institution of the suit" were not in S.13 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 1977 Act) which was the parallel provision to S.15 of the present Act. The same was the position of S.11-A of 1947 Act. Now in S.15 of the Act, power has been specifically vested in the court to direct deposit of arrears of rent even for period before the institution of the suit subject to the law of limitation. When S.15 vests power in clear and unambiguous words in the court before which a suit for recovery of possession of the building is pending to pass an order for deposit of rent even in respect of period before the institution of the suit it has to be held that the tenant can be directed after an enquiry contemplated by S.15 to deposit arrears of rent even for the period prior to the institution of the suit subject to the law of limitation. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then submitted that even if under the new S.15 of the Act Court can direct deposit of arrears of rent for period prior to the date of the institution of the suit, such power can be exercised only in a case where the plaintiff has made a prayer in the plaint for a decree for arrears of rent in respect of the period prior to the institution of the suit. In this connection reliance was placed on the judgement of a learned Judge of this Court in the case of Raghubir Prasad V/s. Surya Narayan, AIR 1986 Pat 17 where a question had arisen in connection with Ss.14 and 15 of the present Act as to whether a landlord who has not made a claim for arrears in the plaint can file an application under S.15 of the Act for a direction for deposit of month to month current rent as well as arrears. In that connection it was observed as follows :- "In my view, if S.15 of the Act is stretched in its application, as interpreted by the learned counsel for the opposite party, it will lead to certain ridiculous anomalies. In that connection it was observed as follows :- "In my view, if S.15 of the Act is stretched in its application, as interpreted by the learned counsel for the opposite party, it will lead to certain ridiculous anomalies. In other words, the Court would be entitled to order payment of arrears even where no arrears can be claimed in law as the matter is being tried under the procedure prescribed under S.14 of the Act which does not deal with recovery of arrears of rent and is only restricted to two of the several grounds available to the landlord for evicting a tenant under S.11 of the Act. The legal situation cannot be disputed even in a suit for eviction for default. If no arrears of rent are claimed relief under S.15 of the Act is not available to the landlord. This principle will apply more so in a proceeding under S.14 of the Act where no such relief can be claimed in law. The matter does not, however, rest there. The question of payment of current rent during the pendency of the suit is also at matter in issue and for that purpose and to that extent S.15 still applies to suits being tried under S.14 of the Act." In the aforesaid case the learned Judge has examined the question in respect of direction regarding payment of arrears of rent in connection with a suit to which S.14 is applicable. In other words, where eviction is sought on the ground of personal necessity or on the ground or expiry of the period of tenancy where there is no scope for making a claim for arrears of rent in the plaint itself, is not of much help, in the present case. The present suit has been filed on the ground of default in payment of rent by the petitioner since Oct. 1983 to April, 1985. Apart from that with due respect for the learned Judge, who decided the aforesaid case, in my view, once he has held that S.15 of the Act applies even to such suits tried under S.14 then I do not find any reason for holding that it will apply only so far current rents are concerned and shall not be applicable in respect of arrears of rent. S.15 opens with the words "if, in a suit for recovery of possession of any building the tenant contests the suit as regards claim for ejectment". As such S.15 shall apply to all suits for recovery of possession of any building where the ejectment is sought on one ground or the other mentioned in S.11 of the Act. It may be pointed out that S.11 of the Act says that "where a tenant is in possession of any building, he shall not be liable to eviction therefrom except in execution of a decree passed by the court on one or more of the following grounds Dwarka Prasad Kapri, Applicant V/s. Smt. Chandra Mania Devi, Opposite Party.