Full Judgment
Rajendra Menon, J.
1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenge is made to the order dated 13-8-2004 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Dabra, in Suit No. 62-A/2002 directing the petitioner/tenant to deposit rent @ Rs. 150/-(Rupees One hundred and fifty only) per month w.e.f. the year 1991 and to further deposit rent every month during the pendency of the proceedings.
2. Respondent filed a suit seeking eviction and possession. Petitioner has filed the written statement however a dispute was raised with regard to rate of rent and an application under Section 13 (2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act was filed by the petitioner. The order impugned is passed on this application. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order to the extent it directs for deposit of rent beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the statute, i.e., three years.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that suit was filed in the year 2002 and therefore only arrears of rent for a period of three years prior to said date could be directed to be deposited and direction given to deposit the entire rent from 1991 is unsustainable. It has been argued by Shri Sharma, learned Counsel that the said direction is contrary to the provisions of Limitation Act which clearly prescribes that rent beyond three years can not be recovered by filing a suit. Inviting my attention to Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mankunwarbai and Ors. v. Sunderlal Rambharosa Jain, 1978 MPLJ 405, so also judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhimsen Gupta v. Bishwanalh Prasad Gupta, : AIR 2004 SC1770 Shri Sharma argued that direction given to the petitioner to deposit rent beyond the period of three years is unsustainable.
4. Refuting the aforesaid, Shri K.N. Gupta, learned Sr. Counsel argued that in an eviction suit, the Court is competent to direct for deposit of rent beyond the period of three years. Inviting my attention to provisions of Section 13 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act it was argued by Shri Gupta, learned Sr. Counsel that there is no bar for claiming rent by a landlord beyond the period of three years and therefore it was argued by him that order does not call for any interference. Placing reliance on a judgment in the case of Khadi Gram Udyog Trust v. Shri Ramchandraji Virajman Mandir : [1978]2SCR249 , judgment rendered by Single Bench of this Court in the case of Shyam Bhagwan Dubey v. Sheikh Nizam and Ors., 1994 JLJ 143 followed by another Single Bench in the case of Bharosilal v. Rihan Ahmed, 2002(1) MPWN 146 and Full Bench judgment of Patna High Court relied upon by the learned Judge in the case of Shyam (supra) and Ram Nandan Sharma and Anr. v. Mt. Maya Devi and Ors., : AIR1975 Pat283 , Shri Gupta argued that no case is made out for interference in the matter.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. Supreme Court in the case of Khadi Gram Udyog Trust (supra) has interpreted the words 'entire amount of rent due' as appearing in the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and it has been held that the aforesaid provision would include rent which has become time barred. However this case was considered by the Full Bench in the case of Mankunwarbai (supra) and it has been held that aforesaid judgment will not apply in a case arises under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. However the learned Judge in the case of Shyam (supra) after following the law laid down by the Full Bench of Patna High Court in the said case has held that in a suit for eviction under Sections 12(1)(A) and 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act tenant has to deposit even time barred rent. This judgment has been followed by another Single Bench in the case of Bharosilal (supra) and it has been held that tenant is required to deposit even time barred rent due for more than three years. However in both these, i.e. in the cases of Bharosilal and Shyam (supra) the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mankunwarbai (supra) has not been taken note of. It is seen that initially in the year 1977, a Full Bench of this Court had heard a reference and it was held by the Full Bench in the year 1977 that the tenant is not obliged to deposit time barred rent under the first part of Section 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. However, after the aforesaid judgment was rendered by the Full Bench in the year 1977 it seems that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Khadi Gram Udyog Trust (supra) was pronounced wherein a different view was observed. Considering the same, the matter was again referred to a Full Bench. The question referred to the Full Bench reads as under :-
'Whether in the light of the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Khadi Gram Udyog Trust v. Shri Ram Chandraji Virajman Mandir, the opinion of the larger Bench given on 19-11-1977 in this appeal, can not hold the field and the tenant-defendant is bound to deposit even the time barred arrears of rent in compliance with the provisions of Section 13(1) and (2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ?'
6. This question has been answered by the Full Bench in the case of Mankunwarbai (supra) in the following terms:-
17. We are, therefore, of the opinion that (i) the tenant is not obliged to deposit time barred rent under Section 13(1) or 13(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, and (ii) their Lordships' decision in Khadi Gram Udyog Trust v. Shri Ram Chandraji Virajman Mandir Sarasiya Ghat, Kanpur, does not apply to Section 13(1) and (2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, as there is no corresponding provision in the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which was under consideration before the Supreme Court in that case.
7. From the aforesaid, it is clear that Full Bench has laid down the law in the case of Mankunwarbai to the effect that tenant is not obliged to deposit time barred rent under Section 13(1) or 13(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. This judgment of the Full Bench is binding on this Court and the judgment in the case of Shyam (supra) and Bharosilal (supra) having been rendered without considering the aforesaid Full Bench judgment of this Court can not be made applicable. Apart from the aforesaid judgments, learned Counsel have not pointed out any other judgments, legal principle, that being so, this Court is bound by the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Mankunwarbai.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed and it is directed that order impugned Annexure P-l, dated 13-8-2004 directing for deposit of rent beyond the period of three years is quashed. It is directed that petitioner shall only be liable to deposit rent prior to a period of three years from the date of filing of suit in question.
9. Petition stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid directions.