Back
1996(2) Supreme 140
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
M/s. Jain Motor Car Co. Delhi -Appellant
versus
Smt. Swayam Prabha Jain & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3679-80 of 1984
Decided on 15-2-1996
Held : While the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal had not struck out the defence of the appellant on the ground that 15 days default in depositing the rent for February, 1972 was not wilful or contumacious, the High Court, on an erroneous view, struck out the defence. We have already noticed above that striking out of defence under Section 15(7) of the Act is in the decision of the Rent Controller. Since the discretion appears to have been properly exercised by the Rent Controller as also by the Rent Control Tribunal, the High Court, in the particular circumstances of the case, was not justified in interfering with that discretion and striking out the defence of the appellant. (Para 21)
(ii) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 15(1)-Time to deposit rent under-Whether can be extended or delay in deposit whether can be condoned ? (Yes)
Held : Applying the above principles to the instant case, it cannot but be held that the view expressed by Rent Controller, the Rent Control Tribunal as also the High Court that the time under Section 15(1) for depositing the rent could not be extended nor could the delay be condoned was wholly erroneous. The whole approach, therefore, from the beginning, was based on wrong premises. (Para 21)
(iii) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Sections 14(1)(a) and 15(1)-Eviction petition on ground of non-payment-Order under Section 15(1)-Default in deposit of future one month s rent-Not deposited by tenant on attorney fell ill-But defence struck out by High Court-Reversed by SC in appeal-Still the default was not removed by appellant in depositing the rent of said one month-So instead of remanding the case on reversal of order, Supreme Court upheld the order of eviction as default was now wilful and remand will not serve any purpose so appeal dismissed. (Para 22)
Held : The High Court thus struck out the defence by substituting its own discretion in place of the Rent Controller and the Tribunal both of whom had held that the default by the appellant was not wilful. The main question was whether appellant was entitled to extension of time in depositing the rent or should he be evicted for not depositing the rent for only one month in time particularly when the default was not wilful or contumacious. At one time, we were inclined to remand the case to the Rent Controller so that the appellant s plea regarding extension of time in depositing the rent for the month of February, 1972 may be considered but having regard to the fact that the appellant had already pleaded those facts which have already been considered by the High Court, we feel that it would not be in the interest of justice now to remand the case as the High Court appears to be justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant was negligent and careless as the rent could still be deposited by any other partner, if the attorney had fallen ill or one partner had forgotten the date of deposit. Any other explanation offered by the appellant would be obviously an after thought and, therefore, as pointed out earlier, it will not serve any purpose to remand the case to the Rent Controller. The result is that the appeal has to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs allowing three months time to the appellant to vacate the premises on filing the usual undertaking to this effect in this Court failing which the respondent-landlady will be entitled to recover possession from the appellant through police force. (Para 22)
JUDGMENT
S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-These are tenant s appeals.
2. Prem Chand Jain, who is since dead and is now represented by respondent No. 1, had filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Delhi, for the eviction of the appellant from the premises No. XI/4239-A, Raj Kishan, Jain Street, Municipal Ward No. XI, Darya Ganj, Delhi, on the ground of deault in payment of rent and sub-letting. This petition came to be tried by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, who passed an order on 24th March, 1971 under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, the Act ) requiring the appellant to deposit all the arrears of rent due for the period from 1.6.1970 within one month from the date of the order and to deposit the future rent also at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m., every month by the 15th of each succeeding month after adjusting an amount of Rs. 800/- which, admittedly, was received by Prem Chand Jain as part of the arrears of rent.
3. While the proceedings were pending before the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, Sh. Prem Chand Jain made an application dated 22.3.1972 under Section 15(7) of the Act for striking out the defence of the appellant on the ground that the appellant had not deposited the rent for the month of February, 1972, by 15th March, 1972 and had instead deposited it on 30th March, 1972. This application was rejected on 24th April, 1972 and the appeal which was thereafter filed by Sh. Prem Chand Jain against this order was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal by order dated 19.4.1973. Sh. Prem Chand Jain then filed a second appeal in the High Court which was registered as S.A.O. No. 198 of 1973.
4. In the meantime, the Third Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, by his order dated 27.10.75, allowed the main petition of Sh. Prem Chand Jain for the eviction of the appellant from the premises in question on the ground that the appellant had committed default in not depositing the rent for the month of February, 1972, by 15th March, 1972 and thus the order dated 24.3.1971 for regularly depositing the future monthly rent by the 15th of each succeeding month was not complied with the further finding that he, namely, the Rent Controller had no power to condone the delay or to extend the time for depositing the rent. Consequently, the appellant was held not entitled to protection under Section 14(2) of the Act and he was directed to be evicted from the premises in question.
5. This order was challenged by the appellant before the Rent Control Tribunal before whom Sh. Prem Chand Jain also filed cross-objections on the question of sub-letting as the Additional Rent Controller had held that the appellant had not sublet any part of the premises and had thereby rejected one of the grounds on which the appellant s eviction was sought. By order dated 20.3.1978, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellant as also the cross-objections filed by the landlord. The Tribunal reiterated the finding recorded by the Rent Controller that it had no power or jurisdiction to condone the delay or to extend the time for depositing the rent and the order passed under Section 15(1) had to be strictly complied with. The appellant then filed a second appeal in the High Court (S.A.O. No. 125 of 1978) which was taken up for hearing along with landlord s S.A.O. No. 198 of 1973. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 19th August, 1982 dismissed the appellant s second appeal while landlord s S.A.O. No. 198 of 1973 was allowed with the finding that the appellant had committed default in not depositing the rent for the month of February, 1972 by 15th March, 1972 and was, therefore, liable to be evicted from the premises in question. The High Court was also of the opinion that the Rent Controller as also the Tribunal were not justified in refusing to strike off the defence of the appellant which was consequently struck off by it.
6. It is in these circumstances that the present appeals have been filed and have now come up for hearing w
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
