Rohit Kumar & Anr vs Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors

This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 27.7.2009 passed by the learned Sub-Judge VII, Ranchi in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 5 of.

2007 allowing the petition filed on behalf of the landlord-respondents under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,

1982 (‘B.B.C. Act’ in short) and directing the tenants-petitioners to deposit the arrears and current rent @ Rs. 50,000/- per month from the

date of institution of the suit i.e. 19.12.2007.

Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel appearing for the tenants submitted as follows: The tenants filed an application on 7.5.2007 before the Sub-

Divisional Officer cum House Rent Controller, Ranchi (‘HRC’ for short) for fixation of fair rent for the premises in question which was

registered as B.B.C. Case No. 15 of 2007 in which by order dated 3.9.2007, the rent was fixed at Rs. 30,000/- per month and on 23.11.2007 the

tenants were directed to deposit the said rent in Court in B.B.C. Case No. 40 of 2007 which was deposited. The present suit was filed on 19.12.2007

by the landlords in which the said application under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act was filed to which the tenants filed rejoinder. Relying on the

judgment reported in 1999 (3) PLJR 120, Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Gaurav Krishna Sahaya. and 1998 (2) PLJR 619 : (AIR 1999 Pat 32) Syed Abid

Imam v. Sharafat Hussain, he submitted that the fair rent fixed by HRC before filing of the suit i.e. Rs. 30,000/- per month, has to be treated as the

‘rent last paid’ in terms of Section 15 of the Act. On the other hand, Mr. La appearing for the landlords supported the impugned order. He

submitted that an appeal against the said order of HRC being Appeal No. 35 R 15 of 2007â€"08 is pending before the appellate authority, and

therefore, it cannot be said that the fixation of fair rent by HRC has attained finality and therefore, the said judgments are not applicable in this case.

He further submitted that admittedly a lease agreement was entered into between the parties w.e.f. 1.6.2005, with agreed rent @ Rs. 50,000/- per

month with stipulation of 15% enhancement after each three years. An amount of Rs. three lacs was paid by the tenants as security/advance which

stood adjusted upto November 2005, as no rent was paid by the tenants after taking the property on lease. Ultimately, the suit was filed on the ground

of default, personal necessity and breach of terms of tenancy. He referred to the following portion of the paragraph 9 and paragraph 13 of the

rejoinder filed by the tenants to the petition filed on behalf of the landlords under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act:

“During the pendency of the BBC Case and its final order by the SDO, Ranchi, the defendants went on remitting through M.O. the monthly rent of

the suit premises to the plaintiffs regularly from March 2007 to December 2007 which the plaintiffs regularly refused to accept.â€​

“In collecting the rent of the suit premises @ of Rs. 50,000/- only, per month, the plaintiffs have received Rs. @ 20,000/- per month in excess as

the fair rent of the suit premises by the Rent Controller has been fixed the rent @ Rs. 30,000/- per month.

Before order of deposit of the rent (his learned Court be pleased to adjust the excess deposit amount deposited by the defendants fixed by the Rent

Controller.â€​

Mr. Lal submitted that thus, the tenants admitted that the ‘rent last paid’ was @ Rs. 50,000/- per month

Admittedly the tenants took the suit premises on lease under a written lease agreement, w.e.f. 1.6.2005, @ Rs. 50,000/- per month as rent with

15% enhancement on expiry of each three years, but they did not pay the agreed rent and moved HRC for fixation of fair rent which was fixed @

30,000/- per month, before institution of suit.

The Judgments relied on behalf of the tenants instead of supporting their case, goes against them. In both the cases, the fair rent fixed was much

higher than the agreed rent and, such fixation became final, before institution of suits, whereas, the rent fixed in this case is less than the agreed rent

and it did not attain finality before institution of the suit.

Even in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal (supra), it is observed “that ‘last rent paid’ as appearing in Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act. is the

‘last legally payable rent’, by the tenant to the landlord.â€​

After considering several judgments, it was said in the case of Syed Abid Imam, (AIR 1999 Pat 32) (supra) as follows:â€

“10. So far determination of fair rent under the old Act of 1947, there is complete departure in the Act of 1982. The mode of fixation of fair rent

has been changed and the municipal valuation of the tenanted premises which was the criteria in the old Act was given a goby and now it has to be

determined on the basis of prevalent rent in the locality. In other words, under the old Act, fair rent was always determined much below the normal

agreed rent or normal rent prevailing in the locality as determination of fair rent was based on the municipal valuation of the property. The said

provision was therefore, always used by the tenant as a weapon against the landlord, inasmuch as whenever landlord tried to evict the tenant, the

latter immediately used to move the Controller for determination of fair rent. The legislation in order to avoid any undue hardship on the landlord, used

the word ‘last paid rent’ in Section 11A (old) and stopped the tenant from putting a defence that it should be the fair rent and not the last paid

that should be deposited. It appears that the Legislature was conscious of the fact that there was a need to increase the fair rent by amending law to

the effect that the fair rent shall be determined on the basis of rate of rent prevailing in the locality for the same or similar accommodation.

Accordingly, in the Act of 1982 the said criteria was added in Section 6 of the Act.â€​

“14. ……… At this stage I must refer the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi, (1996) 6 SCC 44): (1996

AIR SCW 4020) where their Lordships observed:

Therefore, in order to understand and appreciate the binding force of a decision it is always necessary to see what were the facts in the case in

which the decision was given and what was the point which had to be decided. No judgment can be read as if it is a stature. A word or a clause or a

sentence in the judgment cannot be regarded as a full exposition of law. Law cannot afford to be static and, therefore, Judges are to employ an

intelligent technique in the use of precedents.â€​

In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that the tenants are liable to pay the agreed rent, and not the rent fixed by H.R.C., which is

under challenge in appeal.

I am constrained to observe that the conduct of the petitioners in not paying the agreed rent after taking the property on lease, under a written

lease agreement, and moving H.R.C. for purported fixation of fair rent, is very unfair.

However, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the petitioners are directed to deposit arrears of rent @ Rs. 50,000/- per month from

the date of institution of suit i.e., 19.12.2007 till August 2010, by 15.9.2010; and the rent on and from September 2010 onwards, by the 15th day of

each succeeding months, failing which their defence will be struck off.

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with modification in the impugned order, as aforesaid.

However, no costs.

Petition dismissed.