Back
2009 Supreme(SC) 723
158(2009)DLT483(SC), JT2009(7)SC80, (2009)11SCC663, [2009]6SCR96
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and Aftab Alam, JJ.
Shanti Prasad Jain (D) through LRs. – Appellants
Vs.
Prakash Narain Mathur – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2544 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7430 of 2008)
Decided On: 15.04.2009
Aeltemesh Rein, Aldanish Rein, Maheravish Rein and K.K. Gupta, Advs
Suhail Dutt, Vikram Singh and Ram Gupta, Advs.
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 15(7) - Tenant and consequent - Defence of the tenant was struck out - Instance of the landlord/respondent was allowed - Allowing the tenants appeal and setting aside the order - Rejected the application for condonation of delay in depositing the rent - Appellants filed an application for condonation of delay in depositing the rent for the period as mentioned herein earlier on the ground that they were advised by their learned Counsel who appeared for the original tenant - Held, Court examined the impugned order of the High Court and the statements made in the applications and the findings arrived at by the High Court, Court do not find any ground that the High Court had failed to exercise its discretion in favour of the tenant for not condoning the delay in depositing the rent and therefore, it was open to the High Court not to use its discretion in favour of the tenant in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and accordingly, the discretion used by the High Court in favour of the landlord/respondent to strike out the defence - In view of such discretion having been exercised by the High Court as well as the Rent Controller in favour of the landlord/respondent which, in our view, cannot be held to be arbitrary or unjust, we are unable to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court - Fact that the said parties were impleaded in the eviction proceeding before the Rent Controller as well as in the High Court from which the appeal arises - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Tarun Chatterjee, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 31st of January, 2008 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM (Main) No. 50 of 2005 whereby an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution at the instance of the landlord/respondent was allowed and the order passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 5th of November, 2004 allowing the tenant's appeal and setting aside the order dated 18th of May, 2004 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi was set aside whereby the High Court had allowed the application filed by the landlord/respondent under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short `the Act') and rejected the application for condonation of delay in depositing the rent under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, "the Code") of the tenant and consequent thereupon, the defence of the tenant was struck out.
3. The facts in brief are as follows:
The landlord/respondent has filed an eviction petition in respect of Property No. 2076, Katra Roshan Dola, Kinari Bazaar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to `premises in question') against the tenant/appellant inter alia on the grounds of non-payment of rent and subletting before the Rent Controller, Delhi. In the eviction petition, an order was passed under Section 15(1) of the Act by the Rent Controller, Delhi on 15th of March, 1989 directing the original appellant, Shanti Prasad Jain (since deceased) to pay or deposit rent @ Rs. 105/- per month with effect from 1st January, 1985 and to continue to pay or deposit at the said rate by 15th of each succeeding month. Shanti Prasad Jain died on 23rd of May, 1997. During his lifetime, there was no dispute that the rent was not regularly paid in compliance with the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller. One of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased tenant Shanti Prasad Jain namely, Sunil Kumar Jain, thereafter filed an application for impleadment in the aforesaid eviction petition in the year 1995 during the lifetime of Shanti Prasad Jain before the Rent Controller seeking impleadment on the ground that he was a member of the HUF of Shanti Prasad Jain and that he was running the business in the name and style of M/s Vardhman Jewels (India) as a member of the HUF and that he was not a sub-tenant in respect of the premises in question. This application was allowed by an order dated 1st of September, 1995 by the Rent Controller, Delhi. Against the aforesaid order, the landlord/respondent filed a Civil Revision Case No. 1043 of 1995 before the High Court at Delhi and the High Court had only stayed the eviction proceeding till the disposal of the Revision Case. It is not in dispute that after the death of Shanti Prasad Jain (since deceased), the rent was not deposited in compliance with the aforesaid order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act. The admitted position in respect of the deposit of rent and default and belated payment of rent was as follows:
1) Rent for the period from 23rd May, 1997 to August, 1999 was deposited on 2/9/1999.
2) Rent for the period from September, 1999 to September, 2000 was deposited on 27th of March, 2000.
3) Rent for the period from October, 2000 to March, 2003 was deposited on 27th of September, 2002. Be it mentioned here that deposit of rent for the period from October 2000 to March, 2003 was, however, made at the time when the respondent had already filed an application under Section 15(7) of the Act before the Rent Controller, Delhi for striking out the defence of the tenant.
4. In view of the aforesaid default and delayed payment of rent for the aforesaid period, an application under Section 15(7) of the Act for striking out the defence of the appellants was filed by the landlord/respondent on 3rd of January, 2003. This application under Section 15(7) of the Act filed by the respondent was opposed by the appellants on the ground that the rent upto 31st of Januar
