GYAN MOHAN DAS Vs. HARIRAM MAHARAJ AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision by the plaintiff is directed against an order passed by the First Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur, rejecting an application for direction to the opposite party to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month and not at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month under Section 11-A of the Biar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act 3 of 1947), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act". The petitioner, whom I shall refer to as 'the landlord' in this Judgment, filed a suit for ejectment of the opposite party, whom I shall refer to as 'the tenants' hereinafter, from the premises and for realisation of rent at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month. By the said order, the learned Subordinate Judge also disposed of an application filed by the tenants for stay of the hearing of the suit, with which are not concerned in this judgment.

(2.) The relationship of the landlord and tenant is not denied. The landlord's case is that the rent at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month has been fixed by the Controller, and this rate of rent is to take effect from the first July, 1966. The tenants do not deny the fact that the rent has been fixed at this Rate by the Controller; but the defence case is that the rent, so fixed by the Controller, is illegal. It is also an admitted fact that the tenants have already filed a title suit being title suit No. 294 of 1967 in the Court of the Munsiff, First Court, Muzaffarpur for a declaration that the valuation of Rs. 3,500/- fixed by the Municipal authorities is illegal and without jurisdiction and so also the fair rent fixed on the basis of the said valuation is illegal. The landlord, according to the tenants, is not entitled to claim rent at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month unless the title suit filed by the tenants is disposed of.

(3.) In this case, there is no dispute that the rate of rent last paid by the tenants was Rs. 30/- as fixed by the Civil Court in title Suit No. 176 of 1960. The landlord relied on a decision in reported Sobrati Rangrez v. Ganga Prasad,1960 BLJR 661, in which Kanhaiya Singh, J., has held that where a fair rent has been fixed already, then it is the rent so fixed which should be deposited by the tenant under Section 11-A and not the rent at the rate at which it was last paid. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that in view of this decision the tenants have to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month if the rent fixed by the Controller had become final. It seems that the learned Subordinate Judge is of the view that the rent fixed by the Controller is not final unless accepted by the tenants to be so. In paragraph 28 of the written statement filed by the tenants as noticed by the learned Subordinate Judge, it has been specifically pleaded that having come to know of the suit filed by the tenants, the landlord has instituted the present suit for eviction and realisation of rent at Rs. 350/- per month, illegally fixed by the Controller. In this view the learned Subordinate Judge has held that the rent fixed by the Controller at Rs. 350/- per month is not final and it is under controversy. Reliance was placed by him in support of his view on a decision of this Court in Ramjanam Prasad v. Manilal Gupta (Civil Revision No. 260 of 1962), disposed of on the 9th April, 1962, in which Chowdhary, J. held that in order that such fair rent fixed should be taken to be rate of rent at which it was last paid within the meaning of Section 11-A of the Act, that fair rate of rent fixed must be the final one.