IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.144 of 2009 1.NAGENDRA KUMAR 2.RABINDRA KUMAR BOTH SONS OF LATE RAM PRASAD LAL, RESIDENT OF S.P.VERMA ROAD, P.S.- GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-800001, TOWN & DISTRICT- PATNA …. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONERS Versus MD. MURTAZA S/O LATE NAYAMAT ALI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- SUBJIBAGH, DUBEY LANE, P.S. PIRBAHORE, PATNA-800001, PROPRIETOR OF M/S HORIZON SALOON, S.P.VERMA ROAD, P.S.- GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-800001, DISTRICT- PATNA …… DEFENDANT-OPP.PARTY ----------- 3. 15/04/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party. This revision application has been filed by the applicant-landlord against order dated 15.12.2008 passed by Munsif-III, Patna in Eviction Suit No.14 of 2004. By the said order, while allowing the application of the petitioners under section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’), learned court below has directed the opposite party tenant to deposit arrears of rent in the court of the period three years prior to the date of filing of the application by the applicant under section 15 of the Act which was on 25.9.2006. Computing the period of three years from that date, learned court below - 2 - directed the opposite party tenant to deposit arrears of rent from October, 2003 onwards. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per pleadings of the parties, noticed by learned court below itself in the order, the defendant tenant has not paid any rent subsequent to August, 2001. The defendant tenant (Opposite party) has admitted in his written statement that he has paid rent at the rate of Rs.800/- per month from May, 1998 till August, 2001. In the written statement, defendant tenant claimed that the rent at the rate of Rs.800/- paid by him during this period was higher than the rent fixed and therefore he claimed for adjustment of the same. Be that as it may, learned court below has considered that in the suit filed by the applicant petitioner on 31.8.2004 the applicant petitioner had not sought for any relief for recovery of rent although he had made pleadings of non-deposit of rent by the defendant tenant from September, 2001 which was also admitted by the defendant tenant in the written statement. Learned court below has passed order for deposit of rent by the defendant tenant from October, 2003 on the ground that in the suit no relief - 3 - was sought for by the applicant and it was only in the application under section 15 of the Act filed for the first time on 25.9.2006 that he made claim for arrears of rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once arrears of rent has been claimed in the year 2006 and admitted also (as in this case), order for deposit of arrears of rent of period prior to the filing of the suit has to be passed under section 15 of the Act subject to any law of limitation notwithstanding the fact whether any specific relief for deposit of arrears of rent has been prayed for in the original application or not. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Priyavarta Mehta Vs. Amrendu Banerjee, reported in 1996(1) PLJR 732 and has particularly referred to the opinion of the Full Bench as given in paragraph 27 of the judgment, which is quoted herein below : “27. In the case of Jiwan Kumar Sarkar (Supra) which has been relied upon by the respondent, this Court held that the period of limitation for claiming arrears of rent u/s 15 of the Act is not applicable in a suit where arrears of rent is claimed in the suit itself. This Court took the said view on the ground that when a suit is instituted claiming particular relief then the - 4 - limitation for the said relief remains suspended during the pendency of the suit. This view is also not correct for the reason that no distinction can be made between the suit of one nature or the other for the purpose of deciding the period of limitation u/s 15 of the Act. Section 15 of the Act applies to the suit filed for eviction on all the grounds. It does not make any difference as to the nature of the suit. Even in a case where no arrears of rent is claimed in the suit, an order for payment of arrears of rent as well as current and future rent can be passed u/s 15 of the Act. In such a situation, no different period of limitation can be applied with regard to suits founded on different grounds. The said decision also does not lay down the correct law.” (emphasis supplied) Thus, from the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court, it is clear that even in cases in which arrears of rent are not claimed in the suit, order for payment of arrears of rent for period prior to the institution of the suit, to be computed from the date of institution of the suit, can be passed subject to law of limitation. Learned counsel for the tenant-opposite party has submitted that since the petitioner- applicant had not made any prayer in the plaint of the suit itself for payment of arrears of rent, limitation had to be considered on the date he made that prayer by filing his - 5 - application under section 15 of the Act on 25.9.2006, and therefore, the view taken by learned court below in the impugned order is perfectly correct. After going through the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Priyavarta Mehta (supra) and particularly the observations made in paragraph 27 as quoted above, this Court does not find itself in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the opposite party. The approach of the learned court below in the impugned order is found to be in the teeth of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court and particularly its observation made in para 27 of the said judgment. It may also be noticed here that the said judgment of the Full Bench of this Court has been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bindeshwari Choudhary Vs. Ajay Kumar, reported in (1997)4 S.C.C.708. Thus, this Court finds that learned court below has committed error in its approach in directing the tenant opposite party to deposit rent only from October, 2003. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside in part. The application of the petitioner under section 15 of the Act is - 6 - allowed and the tenant opposite party is directed to deposit rent of period three years prior to the date of institution of the suit at the rate last paid. The further directions of learned court below as made in the impugned order shall continue to operate. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)