SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- V.N. Khare and S.N. Phukan, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 5969 of 1998. D/d. 3.11.1999.

Parmeshwar Prasad Daruka - Appellant

Versus

Parmeshwari Devi - Respondent

Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977, Section 12-C - Arrears of rent - It is not open to the Court to condone tenant's default - Court is required to pass a decree for eviction against a tenant found to be in arrears of rent.

[Para 5]

ORDER

V.N. Khare, J. - The respondent herein is the landlord of the premises of which the appellant is the tenant. The landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent as well as on his bonafide need for the premises.

2. The trial court found that the need of the landlord was not bonafide but came to the conclusion that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent and as such is liable to be evicted. However, the trial court instead of passing the order of eviction of the tenant passed a conditional order that in case the tenant deposits the entire arrears of rent within the period of three months, the decree for ejectment would not be executed against the tenant.

3. The tenant filed an appeal against the said conditional order passed by the trial court. The first appellate court held that such a condition was repugnant to the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 and therefore set aside that part of the decree of the trial court.

4. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed. The said judgment of the first appellate court was affirmed by the High Court in the second appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the condition imposed by the trial court was in the nature of a conditional decree and therefore the first appellate court committed a serious mistake of law in setting aside that part of the decree. This contention has no merit. Under Section 12-C of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977, if the tenant commits a default in payment of rent, the court is required to pass a decree for ejectment against the tenant. It was not open to the trial court to condone the default of the tenant. We are, therefore, of the view that the condition imposed by the trial court was correctly set aside by the first appellate court which was affirmed by the High Court.

6. No other points were pressed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. After the order was dictated, learned counsel for the appellant stated that in case the appellant is required to vacate the premises in question immediately, he would be put to great hardship and for that reason the appellant may be granted six months? time to vacate the premises.

8. In the circumstances, we direct that the appellant shall not be dispossessed from the premises till 30-5-2000 subject to his paying arrears of rent, if any, within a month from today and also continues to deposit rent/damages for the period during which he remains in possession of the premises in dispute by virtue of our order. The appellant shall vacate the premises on or before 30-5-2000. The appellant shall also file the usual undertaking to this effect in this Court within four weeks from today.

Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court.