Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 828 (PAT)

Dilip Kumar Sinha v. Jadubir Prasad

2004-08-17

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2004
Judgment S.N.Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners are defendants in title eviction suit No. 18/1996 which was filed by the admitted land-lord, namely, plaintiffs-opposite parties/for eviction of the tenants, namely, defendants-petitioners on the ground of default in payment of rent. 3. The defendants-petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 28.1.2004 passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned second Munsif, Bhagalpur, allowed the plaintiffs petition u/s. 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred as the Act for the sake of brevity) and directed the defendants-petitioners to deposit the rent of the suit premises from July, 2003 to January, 2004, at the rate of Rs. 200.00 per month within a period of 15 days and also to deposit the future rent every month by the 15th of the succeeding month at the same rate. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that admittedly the rent of the suit premises was Rs. 23.00 per month and the defendants had never paid any rent except at the aforesaid rate. He further contended that they had been sending rent at the aforesaid rate by Money Order to the plaintiffs- opposite parties but they refused to accept it. He further contended that earlier the land-lord (plaintiffs) had filed case No. 52/1983 before the House Controller, Bhagalpur, for enhancement of rent which was allowed by that Court on 27.6.1985 subject to the condition that the suit premises, namely, the shop would be repaired by the land-lord within one month and only thereafter the plaintiffs would be entitled to the enhancement of rent. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contained that the tenants i.e. the defendants-petitioners had also filed case No. 95/1983 before the House Controller, Bhagalpur, for a direction to the land-lord to repair the shop room which was in a dilapidated condition. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contained that the tenants i.e. the defendants-petitioners had also filed case No. 95/1983 before the House Controller, Bhagalpur, for a direction to the land-lord to repair the shop room which was in a dilapidated condition. However, when the order dated 27.6.1985 passed in case No. 52/1983 was not complied, the tenants filed a petition in case No. 95/1983 for staying the said matter whereupon an enquiry was ordered and a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 23.10.1987 in which it was mentioned that although, pluster was done on the roof of the shop but no dhalai was done, hence, the House Controller disposed of case No. 95/1983 vide order dated 17,8.1991 directing the land-lord to make necessary repairs within a fixed period of time failing which the tenants were directed to get the promises repaired and to deduct the amount so spent from the rent. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that instead of making necessary repairs as per the aforesaid order, the land-lord filed an appeal against the said order before the Collector, Bhagalpur, who disposed of the same by his order dated 12.12.1994 remitting the case to the House Controller for getting an estimate for the repairs required, but thereafter nothing has been done, although, about a decade has passed. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances the land-lord was not at all entitled to enhance the rent. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite parties contended that the learned Court below has considered the entire matter in detail and has found that after the order of the House Controller dated 27.6.1985 passed in case No. 52/1983, repairs were made in the roof of the shop, but since the tenants did not allow them to enter the suit premises the repairs of the walls could not be made from inside. He further contended that repairs were sufficient as the tenants were running their shop in the suit premises since then and hence, it was the duty of the tenants to pay the rent at the rate Of Rs. 200.00 per month as fixed by the House Controller. He further contended that repairs were sufficient as the tenants were running their shop in the suit premises since then and hence, it was the duty of the tenants to pay the rent at the rate Of Rs. 200.00 per month as fixed by the House Controller. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite parties submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Court below was quite justified in directing payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 200.00 per month specialty when the suit shop is situated in the market area of Sujagunj which is the heart of Bhagalpur town and in the shop room the tenants are running a book binding shop. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is apparent that the learned Court below has considered the order of the House Controller dated 27.6.1985 passed in case No. 52/1983 and has also considered the report of the authorities with regard to the repairs made therein. I also find that there was no necessity for the learned Court below to go into the details of the materials with respect to the proceeding before the House Controller, who had sufficiently found that the necessary repairs have been made due to which the tenants are able to continue their book binding business in the suit shop. 7. But here the matter is a bit different as the main question to be decided . is the question of last paid rent. The admitted fact is that the last paid rent which was paid by the tenants to the plaintiffs was only Rs. 23.00 per month. The law is well settled that the Court while directing payment for arrears of rent should consider the rent last paid and shall not consider the fare rent fixed by the House Controller. as has been held in the case of Shri Chiranji Lal Poddar v. Messers Universal Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital and Anr. another, reported in 1989 PLJR 467. Hence, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned Court below has wrongly fixed the rent at a rate which was not the last paid rent rather it was fixed by the House Controller with a rider that the land-lord will repair the suit premises. But the same is under dispute as to whether it has been complied or not. 8. But the same is under dispute as to whether it has been complied or not. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order of the learned Court below, is set aside and this civil revision is allowed with a direction to the learned Court below to pass a fresh order in view of the aforesaid observations as well as in accordance with the specific provision of law.