IMPORTANT POINT
Where the landlord does not accept any rent tendered by the tenant within the time referred to in Section 26 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 or refuses or neglects to deliver a receipt referred to therein or where there is a bona fide doubt as the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the tenant may deposit such rent with the Controller in the prescribed manner.

JUDGMENT

Tarun Chatterjee, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 12th of December, 2007 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Misc. (Main) No. 1103 of 2007, reversing the order dated 11th of July, 2007 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in RCA No. 33 of 2007 direction eviction of the respondent from premises being no. 18/15, Mandir Wali Gali, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi - 110 016 (in short, “the suit premises”) under Section 14(1)(a) read with Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

3. Before we proceed further, it may be noted at the threshold that this is a case of second default and the respondent having once availed the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act is not entitled to such benefit in case if it is held to be a second default.

4. The facts are not in dispute. The respondent is a tenant in respect of the suit premises. As noted herein earlier, it is not disputed that the respondent has already availed of the benefit of Section 14(2) read with Section 15 of the Act pursuant to an order dated 3rd of December, 2001 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in Eviction Case No. E-105 of 1999. At the present juncture, it may be mentioned that the appellants is now facing the charge of committing second default in payment of rent to the appellants in respect of the suit premises. It is also not in dispute that a demand notice dated 31st of March, 2003 was served by the appellants upon the respondent intimating that the respondent was in arrears of rent for three consecutive months from January, 2003 onwards. It is also not in dispute that on receipt of the said demand notice from the appellants, the respondent had sent the arrears of rent for three months for the period from 1st of January, 2003 to 31st of March, 2003 by a money order dated 22nd of April, 2003. It is also not in dispute that the appellants had refused to accept the money order and consequently, the money was refunded to the respondent. The case made out by the respondent was that he had duly complied with the provisions of the Act which was required to be done by him and therefore, it cannot be held that it was a case of second default whereas the case of the appellants either before the Rent Controller or before the High Court was that on refusal to receive the money order by the appellants, the respondent ought to have taken the recourse of Section 27 of the Act by depositing the aforesaid arrears of rent with the Rent Controller and he not having admittedly done so, was liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the ground of second default under Section 14(1)(a) read with proviso to Section 14(2) of the Act. Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellants before the High Court on a decision of this Court in Atmaram Vs. Shakuntala Rani1 [2005 (7) SCC 211]. The High Court, by the impugned order, however, held that in view of the admitted fact that as the rents were tendered by the respondent to the appellants and the appellants having refused to accept the same, the respondent had duly complied with the provisions of the Act and, therefore, there was no second default on the part of the respondent and accordingly, no order for eviction could be passed on the aforesaid ground. So far as the decision in Atmaram’s case (supra) is concerned, the High Court explained that the said decision cannot be said to have any application to the facts and circumstances of the present case as that was a case where the tenant had deposited a part of the arrears of rent under the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 and his defence was that the amount that was deposited ought to have been treated as having paid to the landlord. It was also explained by the High Court in the impugned order that in the aforesaid decision, this Court held that the deposit made under the Punjab Act could be of no avail to the tenant and since the