Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The trial Court, while deciding the issues, held that the defendant committed breach of the terms of the compromise inasmuch as the arrears of rent were not paid within time, The trial Court further held that the defendant also defaulted in payment of rent for the months of September and October, 1983 by the last date of the next following month and. therefore, he is liable to be evicted on the ground of default under Section ll(l)(d) of the Bihar Building (Lease Rent and Eviction] Control Act. 1982 (shortly the BBC Act).

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court the defendant-respondent preferred First Appeal No. 81/85 before this court. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The learned Single Judge held that although the arrears of rent and municipal taxes were not paid by the defendant within 45 days as fixed in the compromise decree but the plaintiff-appellant realised the entire amount in Execution Case No. 7/83 and the decree was fully satisfied. The learned Single Judge further held that the delay, if any. in payment of the aforesaid amount, cannot be a cause of action for the eviction of the defendant from the suit premises. The learned Single Judge further heid that according to the lease deed monthly rent was payable on or before the 15 day of the next following month. The rent tor the month of September. 1983 was sent by the defendant by cheque dated 29.10.1983 and rent tor the month of October, 1983 was sent by another cheque dated 14.11.1983. Although rent for November. 1983 was payable on or before 15.12.1933 but the plaintiff filed suit on 6.12.1983 i.e. earlier to the due date. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the defendant has not defaulted in payment of two month's rent either within the time fixed in the lease or by the last date of the next following month and. therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree under Section 11(1)(d) of the BBC Act.

"17.5.1984 : The decree-holders files a petition stating therein that the decretal dues of this case has been deposited by the judgment-debtor which has been withdrawn by the decree-holder and. as such, prays to withdraw the case as fully satisfied. Copy of the petition has been supplied to the judgment-debtor.
Heard learned lawyer of the petitioner. Prayer allowed. Case is disposed of as fully satisfied."

10. It further appears that rent for the month of September. 1983 was paid by the defendant vide cheque dated 29.10.1983 and rent for the month of October. 1983 was paid vide cheque dated 14.11.1983. We are, therefore, of the view that the plaintiff- appellant having received the entire arrears of rent in full satisfaction of the decree and the rent for the months of September and October. 1983 having been paid within time prescribed under law, the defendant-appellant cannot be held to be a defaulter. The Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Section 11(1)(d) of the said BBC Act, in the case of Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh and others v. Bajrangalal Singhania and Anr. 1993 Supp (1) SCC 24. held as under :--

11. The Supreme Court again considered the provisions of Section 11(l)(d) of the said BBC Act. in a case reported in 1988 PLJR (SC) 37, wherein their lordships held that when the plea of wilful default is not established, the plaintiff-landlord would not be entitled to a decree for eviction under the aforesaid provisions of the said Act.

12. As noticed above, although there was a few days delay in payment of arrears of rent within the time specified in the compromise petition, the defendant immediately sent the entire arrears of rent by cheques which was not encashed by the plaintiff on the plea that the mode of payment of rent was not by way of cheque. The defendant again deposited the entire arrears of rent in the executing court and on the application filed by the plaintiff the execution case was disposed of on full satisfaction. Further, the defendant sent the rent for the months of September and October. 1983 by two cheques within time. We are, therefore, of the view that the defendant has not defaulted in payment of arrears of rent as also the rent for the months of September and October, 1983. We further hold that even there was a few days delay in payment of arrears of rent, that was not wilful. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court