MANMOHAN KAUR Vs. SURYA KANT BHAGWANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted. The appeal is disposed of by the judgment herein.

(2.) This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Patna (Ranchi Bench) dated 7th of July, 1988. By the aforesaid order the High Court confirmed the striking off of the defence of the appellant in a suit for eviction under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on, the ground of personal necessity and change of the nature of the business by the appellant etc. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction against the defendant- appellant from the shoproom under S. 11 of the said Act on the aforesaid grounds. The appellant filed the written statement contesting the said suit. The case of the appellant was that the respondent-landlord's case was false and a pretext for re-letting the premises for much higher rent after her attempt to increase rent did not succeed. It was further alleged that the landlord had sufficient alternative accommodation which would not entitle him to get a decree. It was denied that there was no change of business carried on apart from those business permitted by the contract of tenancy. There was, however, no such bar in this case. On 4th of February, 1983, the respondent asked for an order under S. 15 of the said Act against the appellant for deposit of arrears and current rent. The Trial Court by its order on that date directed the appellant to deposit the arrears, if any, and continue to deposit rent month by month in future by I 5th day of the month next following. It was stated that the appellant accordingly got challans passed for 2 months together each time and deposited the amount in time in the court treasury throughout. However, through some inadvertence, rent for the months of November and December, 1986 could not be deposited. It was alleged that the appellant had genuine belief that his son had deposited the same. It was further the case of the appellant that neither the lanalord nor any court of law ever pointed out this non- deposit to the appellant. The appellant further asserted that the challans for subsequent period having been passed without any objection, the appellant got the impression which was bona fide that he had complied with the earlier order of the court and continued to be in bona fide occupation of the premises in question. In the premises, the respondent filed a petition under S. 15 of the Act in the trial court for a direction to strike out the defence on the ground that the appellant failed to deposit rent for the months of November and December, 1986. The appellant contested the application, inter alia, contending that the rent for the said period had been duly deposited and asked for a report from the Accounts Branch of the court. This, according to the appellant, was because the challan for that period was found missing from the record of the appellant as asserted. by the appellant. It later transpired on the challans being produced that the rent for the months of November and December, 1986 had not been actually deposited. The appellant's case was and throughout has been that this was a mistake. The appellant, therefore, got a fresh challan passed on or about 9th March, 1988 and deposited the amount. It is further the case of the appellant that all subsequent amounts have been duly, deposited for all subsequent periods. The respondent made his application, as mentioned hereinbefore, under S. 15 of the Act for striking out the defence. On 27th March, 1988, the learned Subordinate Judge III, Jamshedpur found that the rent for the months of November and December, 1986, had not been deposited. The defence against the ejectment, therefore, was struck off. It was contended before the learned, Subordinate Judge that the time to deposit, the rent from time to time, though originally granted for two months had expired, could be extended. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, it was urged that the defence was bound to be struck off since it was apparent that the amount had not been deposited. It was asserted that the defence of the appellant that the amount had been deposited, and the assertion to, which the appellant stuck was obstinate and wrong and therefore, not bona fide. Taking view of these evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the excuse for non-deposite was not bona fide and there was unexplained delay to deposit the rent for the months of November and December, 1986 as enjoined by the order of the court, and, therefore, under S. 15 of the Act., it was, obligatory for the court to strike off the defence. The High Court was moved in revision. The High Court dismissed the application on the 7th July, 1988 in limine. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Section 13 of the Act enjoins making of an application for deposit by a tenant in suits for ejectment. The said section provides, as, follows: