SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(SC) 178

A.P.SEN, V.R.KRISHNA IYER
Santosh Mehta – Appellant
Versus
Om Prakash – Respondent


Advocates:
B.D.SHARMA, P.H.Parekh, RAJAN KARANJAWALA, SHYAMALA PAPPU, VINITA CAPRIHAN

JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J.:— A short but interesting point affecting the validity and propriety of an order under S. 15 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, the Act), has been raised by counsel for the appellant. The decision of this question is of importance and we regard it as necessary to clarify the position so that the error committed by the trial Judge may not be repeated.

2. Rent Control laws are basically designed to protect tenants because scarcity of accommodation is a nightmare for those who own none and, if evicted, will be helpless. Even so, the legislature has provided some grounds for eviction, and the Delhi law contains an extreme provision for striking out altogether the defence of the tenant which means that even if he has excellent pleas to negative the landlords claim the court will not hear him. Obviously, this is a harsh extreme and having regard to the benign scheme of the legislation this drastic power is meant for use in grossly recalcitrant situations where a tenant is guilty of disregard in paying rent. That is why a discretion is vested, not a mandate imposed. Section 15 (7) reads thus :

"If a tenant fails to make payment or deposit as requir













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top