Jharkhand High Court
Birendra Kumar Singh vs Gurunam Singh on 28 June, 2011
Author: Prashant Kumar
Bench: Prashant Kumar
W.P. (C) No. 1622 of 2008
...
[In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India]
...
Birendra Kumar Singh ... ... Petitioner
V e r s u s
Gurunam Singh ... ... Respondent
...
For the Petitioner : Mr Vijoy Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate.
Mr Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
Mr Ashish Kumar Shekhar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr Prashant Pallava, Advocate.
...
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR.
...
By court: This writ application has been filed against the order dated
11.03.2008(Annexure3) passed in Eviction Suit No. 8 of 2007 by learned Munsiff, Ranchi, whereby learned court below has allowed the application filed by plaintiff/respondent under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 and directed the petitioner to deposit the rent from January, 2005 to May 2005 at the rate of Rs. 200/ per month and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 5208/ per month as fixed by the Rent Controller and has also directed petitioner to deposit current rent at that rate.
2. Sri V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the aforesaid order on the ground that as per Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, a tenant is liable to pay rent at the rate last paid by him, but the court below has asked the petitioner to deposit rent at a higher rate which was fixed by the Rent Controller. It is submitted by Sri Singh that it is well settled that higher rent fixed by the Rent Controller cannot be ordered to be deposited in an application filed under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act. He relied upon two judgments i.e. 1977 BBCJ 662 (FB) & 1985 PLJR
444.
3. On the other hand, Sri Prashant Pallava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submitted that in view of judgment reported in 1998 (2) PLJR 619 the court has power to direct the tenant to deposit rent fixed by the Rent Controller.
4. So far this ground is concerned, in my view the same is not required to be decided at this stage, in view of Annexure1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner on 24.06.2011. It appears that fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller has been set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (Appellate Authority) in BBC Appeal Case No. 55 R15/201011. Since, the order by which the fair rent fixed has already been set aside, thus question of depositing fair rent at this stage does not arise. However, I give liberty to the parties to raise the said question before the appropriate forum as and when the same will arise.
5. Sri Singh has assailed the order on another ground and submitted that there is dispute between the parties regarding the rate of rent last paid. According to the petitioner the last paid rent is Rs. 38/ per month, whereas as per the plaintiff/respondent the last paid rent is Rs. 200/ per month. It is submitted that the court below, without making inquiry and without giving any opportunity to the parties for adducing evidence in this respect, had concluded that the last rent paid by the petitioner to the landlord was Rs. 200/ per month.
6. Sri Pallava appearing for the respondent has fairly submitted that in this respect no such inquiry was made. However, he submits that petitioner may be directed to deposit rent in the court below at the rate of Rs. 38/ per month from January, 2005 till date and petitioner may also be directed to deposit the rent at the same rate in future. He submits that with the aforesaid direction the impugned order may be modified.
7. To this Sri Singh has no objection. However, he submits that he may be given one month time for depositing the said rent in the court below.
8. In view of aforesaid agreement between the parties the impugned order is modified to the extent that petitioner shall deposit arrears of rent from January 2005 to June 2011 at the rate of Rs. 38/ per month and shall also go on depositing the rent for the future months during the pendency of suit in the court below. It is also made clear that plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the said amount without prejudice to the case of the petitioner as made out in the written statement. Petitioner is directed to deposit the arrears of rent latest by 31st of July, 2011. Petitioner is also directed to deposit the rent of July 2011 and onwards by 15th of next month for which rent becomes due. It is further made clear that if petitioner fails to deposit the rent as directed above, his defence will be struck off.
9. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned orders, this writ application is disposed of.
(Prashant Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 28.06.2011 sunil/ NAFR