SMT. BIDHOTAMA DEVI Vs. SRI DEOKI SAO AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point to be decided in this case is whether on the fixation of fair rent of a building under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 the tenant can be directed to deposit rent under Sec. 13 (corresponding to Sec. 15 of the present Act) of the Act in a pending suit at the rate he has been paying or whether the Court has no jurisdiction to order deposit at a rate higher than the fair rent. A portion of a building in Gaya town belonging the plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 was let (sic) the Petitioner. The plaintiff filed in revision arises in May, 1979 for eviction of the defendants on the ground that there was default in payment of rent since November, 1976 and that the petitioner defendant No. 1 had sublet the premises to the opposite party No. 2. The defendant made an application under Sec. 13 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 for a direction to the tenant lo deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 60/ - and to go on depositing the future rent by the 15th day of the succeeding month. The petitioner denied the liability to deposit the rent al the rate claimed on the ground that the authority under the Buildings Control Act had determined the fair rent at Rs. 9/ - per month. Overruling this objection, the Court below has allowed the prayer of the plaintiff by the impugned order.

(2.) The case was earlier listed before me sitting singly when I referred it for hearing before a Division Bench.

(3.) It has been contended by Mr. R.S. Chatterjee, appearing in support of the application that in view of the fair rent having been fixed in this case at Rs. 9/ - per month, the petitioner cannot be asked to pay to the plaintiff -landlord the rant at a higher rate This argument, to my mind, cannot be accepted in face of the decision of the full Bench in N.M. Verma v/s. U.N. Singh ( : 1977 B.B.C.J. 662 : : 1978 PLJR 32)