Patna High Court
S.M. Khalil And Anr. vs Akhauri Sitaram And Anr. on 12 August, 1957
Equivalent citations: AIR1958PAT103, AIR 1958 PATNA 103
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
ORDER
1. In Civil Revision No. 874 of 1956, the petitioner S. M. Khalil has obtained a rule from the High Court against the order of the Munsif of Patna, dated 20th August, 1956, requiring the petitioner to deposit rent under Section 11-A of the Bihar Act 3 of 1947 (as amended) at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month from September 1955 to March 1956.
2. In Civil Revision No. 995 of 1956, the plaintiff-landlord, Akhauri Sitaram, has obtained a rule against that portion of the order of the Munsif of Patna, dated 20th August, 1956, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner requiring the defendant-tenant to deposit rent in Court from April 1954 to August 1955.
3. In Civil Revision No. 874 of 1956, the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that the Munsif committed an error of law in requiring the petitioner-defendant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month for the period in question. It was submitted that the rent of the house was at first Rs. 26/-per month and that the rent was increased to Rs. 70/- on 15th of January, 1948, and later on the rent was increased to Rs. 100/- per month.
This position was disputed on behalf of the landlord and it was contended on his behalf that the rent was Rs. 150/- in the beginning but, later, it was reduced to Rs. 100/- at the request of the tenant. It is not, however, disputed between the parties that rent was being actually paid at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month till March 1954 and that no rent had been paid by the defendant from April 1954.
The argument addressed on behalf of the petitioner is that the Munsif was not competent to require the defendant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month which was the rent actually paid. It was argued that the Munsif ought to have decided the question as to what was the fair rent of the disputed house and then only required the defendant to deposit rent at the rate so fixed. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. The question of law turns upon the right interpretation of Section 11-A which has been introduced by Bihar Act 16 of 1955, and which reads as follows :
''Deposit of rent by tenants in suits for ejectment. -- 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 or the rent at such rate for any month by the fifteen day of the next following month, the Court shall order the de-'fence 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."
It is important to notice that Section 11-A gives right to the landlord to make an application to the Court for order upon 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'. On behalf of the petitioner stress was laid upon the subsequent clause of the section which empowers the Court 'after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard' to make an order 'for deposit of rent at such rate as may be determined month by month and the arrears of rent, if any'.
It is argued by learned counsel that this meant that the Court was empowered to make an enquiry into the question of fair rent which was the only rate of rent legally payable by the defendant-tenant. We are unable to accept this interpretation as correct. It is the accepted principle of construction that in order to correctly interpret a section all parts of the section have got to be read together and the interpretation put must be consistent and harmonious, Applying this principle, it appears to us that the Court is not required to go into the question of fair rent in an application made under Section 11-A. The only enquiry which the Court should make is as to what was the rent which was last paid by the tenant-defendant and what was the quantum of arrears of rent, according to the rate of rent which was actually paid last. It follows, therefore, that the order passed by the Munsif requiring the petitioner to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 100 per month is a perfectly legal order and there is no error of law or error of jurisdiction vitiating this order.
4. On behalf of the petitioner, counsel referred to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Nath v. Shanti Chemical Works, AIR 1953 Cal 407 (A), where it was held that the rent deposited under Section 14(4) of the West Bengal Act 17 of 1950 was the standard rate of rent and not any higher rate. But the ratio of this case has no application to the present case because Section 14(4) of the West Bengal Act occurs in a different context and has been interpreted in the High Court in that particular context.
It appears that Section 17 of the West Bengal Act expressly provided that such portion of the rent as would exceed the standard rent deter-mined according to the provisions of the Act shall be irrevocable from the month of the tenancy next after the month in which the Act came into force. The decision of the Calcutta High Court as to the interpretation of Section 14(4); was given in the context of this section. There is no provision in the Bihar Act corresponding to Section 17 of the West Bengal Act and the decision of the Calcutta High Court has, therefore, no application to this case.
5. For the above reasons, we hold that the order of the Munsif dated 20th August 1956, is a perfectly legal order and there is no want of jurisdiction or error of law vitiating that order. The application of the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 874 of 1956 must be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
6. Civil Revision No. 995 of 1956 is on behalf of the landlord and from the order of the Munsif it appears that the prayer of the landlord requiring the tenant to deposit rent from April 1954 to August 1955 was rejected on the ground that the tenant-defendant had already furnished security bond in respect of that amount.
It should be remembered that the power I of the Court to order deposit of rent under Section I 11-A is a discretionary power and in the pre-sent case we are satisfied that the Munsif rightly decided that- the discretion should not be exercised in favour of the plaintiff. There is no merit in this application also, and we dismiss it. There will be no order as to costs in this case as well.