Manju Choudhary And Another v. Dulal Kumar Chandra .

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal challenges an order of the High Court of Patna affirming the trial court’s decision to strike out the tenant’s defence for failure to deposit rent in accordance with the Bihar Building (Letting, Rent and Eviction) Control Ordinance, 1982. The trial court found the tenant in default. In revision, the High Court also found that the rent for the month of July, which was required to be deposited by 15-08-1979, was not deposited earlier than 20-08-1979, constituting a default. The High Court further noted the tenant’s conduct, including defaults in complying with two prior orders referenced in the proceedings, and held that the trial court had rightly struck off the defence. The tenant’s plea that a bank strike prevented timely deposit was found to be incorrect, as there was no bank strike. A special leave petition proceeded on the basis that there was an actual delay of 4 or 5 days in depositing the rent. The present appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the tenant committed a default by failing to deposit the July rent within 15 days of the next following month as required.
2. Whether, under Section 13 of the Bihar Building (Letting, Rent and Eviction) Control Ordinance, 1982, the court is obliged to strike out the tenant’s defence upon such default.
3. Whether the tenant’s plea of a bank strike could justify or excuse the delay in deposit.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant/Tenant's Arguments

• Asserted that a bank strike prevented timely deposit of rent for July; this was found to be incorrect as there was no bank strike.
• The special leave petition proceeded on the basis that there was a delay of only 4 or 5 days in depositing the rent.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court’s analysis turned on the text and effect of Section 13 of the Bihar Building (Letting, Rent and Eviction) Control Ordinance, 1982. Section 13 provides that in a suit for recovery of possession, if the tenant contests the claim for ejectment, the landlord may move for an order directing the tenant to deposit rent month by month at the last paid rate and, subject to limitation, the arrears of rent. After hearing the parties, the court may order such deposits. The provision then mandates that “on failure of the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within 15 days of the next following month the court shall order the defence against the ejectment to be struck off.”

Applying this mandate, both the trial court and the High Court found a delay: the July rent, due by 15-08-1979, was deposited no earlier than 20-08-1979. The tenant’s explanation of a bank strike was rejected because there was, in fact, no bank strike. Given the statutory language, the court concluded there is a duty cast on the court to strike out the defence when the tenant fails to deposit arrears within the 15-day period. Because the lower courts had made concurrent findings of delay within the meaning of Section 13, the appellate court found no basis to interfere with the High Court’s order striking off the defence.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: APPEAL DISMISSED; no order as to costs.

Implications: The High Court’s order striking out the tenant’s defence stands, based on the mandatory consequence under Section 13 for failure to deposit rent within the prescribed 15-day period. The immediate effect is that the tenant’s defence against ejectment remains struck off. The opinion limits itself to the statutory application and does not set out broader doctrinal guidance beyond enforcing the statutory mandate.