IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.938 of 2011 Mostt Naseema Khatoon & Ors Versus Md.Ziauddin Ansari & Anr ----------- 4 15.7.2011 The instant application is directed against the order dated 20.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.No.4, Kishanganj in Eviction Appeal No.6 of 2003 by which the application of the respondents under section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (in short’ the BBC Act’) has been allowed and the appellants-petitioners have been directed to deposit the arrears of rent from July, 1993 till that month by 15.12.2010 and to deposit future rent by 15th subsequent month. The plaintiffs-respondent 1st set filed Eviction Suit No.1/96 for eviction from the suit land as well as a decree for arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit the original plaintiff Abdus Sattar died on 16.3.1996 leaving behind his widow, sons and daughter who were substituted. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners being Eviction Appeal No.6 of 2003 against the impugned judgment and decree. While decreeing the suit, the trial court directed for payment of arrears of rent from July, 1993 to December, 1995 @ Rs.40 per month. In the appeal, the plaintiffs-respondents filed a petition on 24.1.2009 under section 15 of the BBC Act for payment of arrears of rent as directed by the trial court i.e. from July 1993 to December, 1995 @ Rs.40 2 per month along with current rent. The appellants, who are petitioners here, filed rejoinder to the application filed by the plaintiffs under section 15 of the BBC Act. The trial court allowed the application of the plaintiffs-respondents and directed the petitioners to pay the arrears of rent from July 1993 to December 1995 along with current rent @ Rs.40 per month. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Appellate Court could not have directed for payment of arrears of rent from July 1993 in view of the limitation clause in section 15 of the BBC Act. He further submits that the Limitation Act prohibits filing of a suit claiming arrears of rent for a period three years prior to filing of such suit. The application for payment of rent under section 15 has been filed in 2009 and as such court would not have directed for deposit of arrears of rent three years prior to filing of such application. On the other hand, Mr. Swaraj Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the term limitation used in section 15 of the Act has not been mentiuoned in theperspective as has been interpreted by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that in a matter of deposit of arrears of rent there is no limitation and arrears up to three years prior to the institution of the suit can be directed to be paid in a proceeding covered under the BBC Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Priyavarta Mehta Vs Amrendu Banerjee, reported in 1996(1) PLJR 732 as well as in the case of 3 Bindeshwary Choudhary & another Vs Ajay Kumar, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 708 wherein the Full Bench decision of this Court has been approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The respondents have also relied upon a recent decision of this court in the case of Nagendra Kumar Vs Md. Murtuza, reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 36. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The issue in hand is fully covered by the Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Priyavarta Mehta Vs Amrendu Banerjee (supra) wherein this Court in paragraph 28 observed as follows: “28. Thus, after having considered the past history of the legislation, mischief in the previous legislation, the intention of the legislature in adding the aforesaid expressions in Section 15, the purpose and object of the provision, I hold that Section 15 of the Act empowers the Court to pass an order for arrears of rent even prior to the institution of the suit for a period not barred by limitation as well as for arrears of rent and rent by month to month during the pendency of the suit. The expression “subject to law of limitation” applies only with regard to claim of arrears of rent prior to the institution of the suit. The claim for arrears of rent during the pendency of the suit is not controlled or circumscribed by period of limitation. I may add here that while construing the provision, I have not lost sight of the fact that the primary object of the Act is the protection of the tenant. The view taken by me does not defeat the said object as it does not cause injustice to the tenant, on the other hand, it effectuates the purpose of Section 15 of the Act”. In view of the settled proposition of law, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.11.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Court in Eviction Appeal No.6 of 2003 directing payment of rent from July, 1993. 4 KHAN Counsel for the petitioner prays time to deposit the arrears as well as current rent. The petitioners would deposit the arrears as well as current rent within one month from today. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)