AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J.—Heard counsel for the Petitioners. The opposite party has not appeared.
The issue relates to Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The very purpose of Section 15 requiring deposit of rent by a tenant failing which the defence will not be entertained, and keeping the issue alive until final hearing defeats the intention of the Legislature. If rent is due the law requires its deposit subject to whatever order may be passed in the suit ultimately. In so far as rent due is concerned, it also includes time barred rent, such is the law. The fact that rent is to be deposited is to mitigate further damages. Thus, the expression of the Court below that if rent was required to be deposited, the Court''s mind will be opened is a manifest error. It is entirely up to the tenant to comply with the intention of Section 15 or face the consequences of law if the deposit is not made.
The order of learned Munsif dated 29th January, 2003 passed in E.V. Suit (sic) No. 1 of 1999 Kashi Nath Jha and Ors. v. Bhola Prasad is, thus, quashed.
The revision is allowed.,There will be no order as to costs.