Important point
If the rent is not deposited in the Court of the Rent Controller as required by Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and is deposited somewhere else, it shall not be treated as a valid payment/tender of the arrears of rent within the meaning of the Act and consequently the tenant must be held to be in default.

Headnote:Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958—Sections 14(1) and 27—Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934—Eviction petition—Default in payment of rent—Appellant, tenant of respondent—Rent presently payable for the premises is Rs. 56/- p.m.—No dispute with regard to payment of rent till January 1991—Rent for the period 1.2.1992 to 31.1.1995 was never remitted by appellant to respondent nor was it ever deposited in the Court of Rent Controller—Appellant had deposited the rent for the later period 1.2.1995 to 31.7.1996 u/s 27 of the Act—Appellant’s case that in the month of January 1995, he deposited the rent for the period 1.2.1992 to 31.1.1995 under the provisions of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act—Respondent refused to receive the deposit made under the provisions of the Punjab Act—By order dated 12.2.1995, petition under the Punjab Act was disposed of—Appellant was allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by him—Whether appellant defaulted in payment of rent inasmuch as he had not paid or tendered or deposited the rent for the period 1.2.1992 to 31.1.1995 in the manner required by law—(Yes).
       Held : From the facts noticed above it is apparent that the rent for the period February 1, 1992 to January 31, 1995 was never remitted by the appellant to the respondent nor was it ever deposited in the Court of the Rent Controller, though the appellant had deposited the rent for the later period- February 1, 1995 to July 31, 1996 under Section 27 of the Act. Despite service of notice he did not deposit the rent for the period February 1, 1992 to January 31, 1995 in the Court of the Rent Controller as provided under the Act. This was despite the fact that the proceeding under the Punjab Act stood concluded by order of the Court dated February 12, 1995 permitting the appellant to withdraw the amount deposited under the Punjab Act on the respondent’s refusal to accept the same. The core question, therefore, which arises for consideration is whether the appellant defaulted in payment of rent inasmuch as he had not paid or tendered or deposited the rent for the aforesaid period in the manner required by law. The question also arises whether the deposit of rent under the Punjab Act can be construed to be a valid deposit under the Act. (Paras 6 and 7)
       It will thus appear that this Court has consistently taken the views that in Rent Control Legislations if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act. If any condition precedent is to be fulfilled before the benefit can be claimed, he must strictly comply with that condition. If he fails to do so he cannot take advantage of the benefit conferred by such a provision. (Para 19)
       The Act, therefore, prescribes what must be done by a tenant if the landlord does not accept rent tendered by him within the specified period. He is required to deposit the rent in the Court of the Rent Controller giving the necessary particulars as required by sub-section (2) of Section 27. There is, therefore, a specific provision which provides the procedure to be followed in such a contingency. In view of the specific provisions of the Act it would not be open to a tenant to resort to any other procedure. If the rent is not deposited in the Court of the Rent Controller as required by Section 27 of the Act, and is deposited somewhere else, it shall not be treated as a valid payment/tender of the arrears of rent within the meaning of the Act and consequently the tenant must be held to be in default. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court was right in holding that the appellant had failed to pay/tender arrears of rent for the period February 1, 1992 to January 31, 1995. The deposit made under the provisions of the Punjab Act was of no avail in view of the express provision of Section 27 of the Act. (Paras 21 and 22)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The rent for Feb 1, 1992 to Jan 31, 1995 was never remitted or deposited in the Rent Controller’s Court, though later period deposits were made under Section 27, leading to default findings. (!) (!) (!) - The Act prescribes a specific procedure: deposit in the Court with required particulars; deposits elsewhere are not valid and constitute default. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - A tenant cannot rely on deposits under a different Act (Punjab Act) to avoid default under the Rent Control Act; such deposits are of no avail under Section 27. (!) (!) - Strict compliance with the Act’s procedure is necessary for the tenant to avail the Act’s benefits; failure to follow preconditions bars such relief. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The deposit under the Punjab Act did not satisfy the required procedure under the Delhi Rent Control Act and could not shield the default. (!) (!) - The High Court’s revisional interference was upheld due to a serious error of law, confirming the eviction-related consequences of default. (!) (!)

What is the effect of depositing rent outside the Court of the Rent Controller under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act?

What is required to establish default in payment of rent under the Delhi Rent Control Act when a landlord does not accept tender?

What consequences follow for a tenant who fails to strictly comply with the deposit/tender procedure under the Rent Control Act?

Judgment

B.P. Singh, J.—This appeal by Special Leave impugns the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated October 31, 2002 in CMM No. 800 of 2000. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order allowed the petition filed by the respondent/landlady and setting aside the judgment and orders of the Additional Rent Controller dated November 15, 1999 and the Rent Control Tribunal dated August 28, 2000 passed an order of eviction against the appellant herein. The High Court recorded a finding that the appellant/tenant had defaulted in payment of rent for the period February 1, 1992 to January 31, 1995. It may be noticed at the threshold that this is a case of second default, and the appellant having availed of the benefit under sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is not entitled to such benefit in case of second default.

2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant is a tenant of the respondent and the rent presently payable for the premises is Rs. 56/- per month. There is no dispute with regard to payment of rent till January, 1991. According to the appellant he sent a money order remitting the rent payable for the month of February, 1992 on February 7, 1992 but the respondent refused to accept the same. Thereafter, he sent a money order on March 29, 1993 tendering the rent for the period January 1, 1992 to April 30, 1993. The same was refused. The respondent claimed enhancement of rent by 10% i.e. from Rs. 50.75 per month to Rs. 56/- per month. The money order sent on August 10, 1994 tendering the rent for the period February 1,1992 to August 30, 1993 was again refused by the respondent. The case of the appellant is that in these circumstances in the month of January, 1995 he deposited the rent for the period February 1, 1992 to January 31, 1995 under the provisions of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Punjab Act’). The respondent refused to receive the deposit made under the provisions of the said Act. Consequently, by order dated February 12, 1995 the petition under the Punjab Act was disposed of and the appellant was allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by him.

3. The respondent called upon the appellant to pay the arrears of rent by issuance of notice dated May 16, 1996. The appellant expressed his willingness to pay the arrears of rent but sent with his reply a cheque for a sum of Rs. 952/- only purporting to pay rent due for the period February, 1995 to June 1996. Thereafter the appellant deposited rent for the period February, 1995 to July, 1996 under Section 27 of the Act. This was deposited on July 20, 1996 by cheque for the sum of Rs.1008/-. It is not in dispute that the arrears of rent so tendered excluded the rent for the period February 1, 1992 to January 31, 1995, which the appellant had deposited under the Punjab Act to which we have referred earlier.

4. On January 1, 1998, the respondent filed an application for eviction of the appellant from the premises in question under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Act before the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

5. The Additional Rent Controller by his judgment and order of November 15,1999 dismissed the Eviction Petition which was confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal by its judgment and order of August 28, 2000. The respondent preferred a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated October 31, 2002. The crucial fact which deserves to be noticed is that for the period February 1, 1992 to January 31, 1995 the rent due was deposited under the provisions of the Punjab Act, which proceeding was disposed of by order dated February 12, 1995 permitting the appellant to withdraw the amount deposited by him in Court under the aforesaid Act.

6. From the facts noticed above it is apparent that the rent for the period February 1, 1992 to January 31, 1995 was never remitted by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1113

What is the effect of depositing rent outside the Court of the Rent Controller under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act?

What is required to establish default in payment of rent under the Delhi Rent Control Act when a landlord does not accept tender?

What consequences follow for a tenant who fails to strictly comply with the deposit/tender procedure under the Rent Control Act?

Cases Referred (7)