1. Eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, based on non-payment of rent and failure to comply with Section 15(1) directions. (Para 2 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 466
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. CHELAMESWAR, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
B.R. GUPTA – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6461 OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.36427 of 2014
Decided On : 09-05-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
When the tenant is a willful defaulter and does not pay the rent even after order of the Rent Controller u/s 15(1), he is liable to be evicted u/s 14(1)(a).
When the tenant is a willful defaulter and does not pay the rent even after order of the Rent Controller u/s 15(1), he is liable to be evicted u/s 14(1)(a).
Subject
Eviction - Non-Payment of Rent
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Section 15(1) – Rent Controller leaving open issue of rent for 1.4.2001 till 30.9.2004 being in dispute, and directing the rent from 1.10.2004 vide order dated 07.02.2005 – Not complied with – Rent Controller ordering eviction vide order dated 05.07.2011 – Later order not a modification of earlier order – Both orders cannot be held to have merged. (Para 14)
(b) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Section 15(1) r/w Section 14(1)(a) – Tenant a willful defaulter – Not paying rent despite order u/s 15(1) – Rent Controller rightly allowing eviction petition u/s 14(1)(a). (Para 15)
(1977) 3 SCC 483; (1980) 2 SCC 151; (1984) 3 SCC 111 – – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
The premises in question was let out by the landlord to the tenant for residential purposes and the last paid rent was @ Rs.500/-p.m. exclusive of other charges. The landlord issued a demand notice under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act to the appellant-tenant on 19.1.2004 demanding rent @ Rs.500/-p.m. w.e.f. 1.4.2001 along with interest thereon. Since the tenant failed to pay the rent, the petition for eviction of the tenant was filed.
The Rent Controller passed an order dated 7.2.2005 directing the tenant to pay or deposit a sum of Rs.500/-p.m. as rent w.e.f. 1.10.2004 and continue to pay the same at the aforesaid rate month by month.
The Rent Controller allowed the petition by order dated 27.4.2010 under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.
The Rent Controller held that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act and passed eviction order under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.
On remand form the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, the Rent Controller allowed the petition by order dated 5.7.2011 under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.
The appeal filed by the tenant challenging the said order of the Rent Controller before the Rent Control Tribunal was allowed.
The landlord challenged the said order before the High Court which has been allowed restoring the order passed by the Rent Controller.
Finding of the Court:
When the tenant is a willful defaulter and does not pay the rent even after order of the Rent Controller u/s 15(1), he is liable to be evicted u/s 14(1)(a).
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a subsequent order for arrears merges with a prior Section 15(1) order and whether the Rent Controller should condone delays in rent deposits. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. The tenant failed to comply with the Section 15(1) order and provided no justifiable reason for the delay, establishing willful default in rent payment. (Para 14 , 15 )
4. Condonation of delay in rent deposits under the Delhi Rent Control Act requires the tenant to plead justifiable reasons showing circumstances beyond their control. (Para 15 )
5. Appeal dismissed; eviction order restored, with the tenant granted three months to vacate the premises. (Para 16 )
6. Does a subsequent order directing payment of arrears merge with a prior order passed under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act?
No. An order under Section 15(1) directing the payment of future rent month-by-month does not merge with a later order directing the payment of arrears of rent. (Para 14 )
7. Can a Rent Controller condone a tenant's default in making payment or deposit of future rents?
Yes, the Rent Controller has discretionary power to condone defaults in the payment of future rents, provided the tenant pleads justifiable reasons showing they were prevented from compliance by circumstances beyond their control. (Para 15 )
8. What is the requirement for a tenant to avoid eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under the Delhi Rent Control Act?
To avoid eviction under Section 14(1)(a), the tenant must make the payment or deposit of rent as required by Section 15 of the Act. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT
S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal emanates from the proceedings of an eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord on 12.4.2004 under Sections 14(1)(a),(b), (d) and (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’) against the appellant-tenant before the Additional Rent Controller, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, seeking eviction of the appellant-tenant from the premises bearing property No.47, 1st Floor, Bunglow Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. It is an admitted position that the premises in question was let out by the landlord to the tenant for residential purposes and the last paid rent was @ Rs.500/-p.m. exclusive of other charges. The eviction petition was confined ultimately to the solitary ground under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The landlord issued a demand notice under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act to the appellant-tenant on 19.1.2004 demanding rent @ Rs.500/-p.m. w.e.f. 1.4.2001 along with interest thereon. Since the tenant failed to pay the rent, the petition for eviction of the tenant was filed as aforesaid.
3. The tenant filed the written statement denying the allegations made in the eviction petition besides providing his defence on merits. However, with regard to the ground of non-payment of rent, it was, inter alia, contended that he is not guilty of non-payment and he had paid the rent from time to time to the landlord who did not issue any receipt against the same. It was further contended that pursuant to the receipt of demand notice dated 19.1.2004, he had sent a reply dated 22.3.2004 whereby he tendered a sum of Rs.18,000/-to the landlord by way of a bank draft towards rent @ Rs.500/-p.m. for the period 1.4.2001 till 30.9.2004. To the aforesaid written statement of the tenant, the landlord filed his replication categorically denying the allegations made in the written statement and reaffirmed the contents of his eviction petition.
4. After completion of the pleadings, the matter was taken up by the Rent Controller for consideration under Section 15(1) of the Act. Keeping in view the respective stand of the parties, the Rent Controller passed an order dated 7.2.2005 directing the tenant to pay or deposit a sum of Rs.500/-p.m. as rent w.e.f. 1.10.2004 and continue to pay the same at the aforesaid rate month by month.
5. Thereafter, parties led their evidence. After the conclusion of the evidence, the Rent Controller allowed the petition by order dated 27.4.2010 under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The Rent Controller held that the tenant has failed to prove that he had tendered the rent to the landlord pursuant to the demand notice dated 19.1.2004 and thus the tenant is guilty of non-payment of rent within the ambit of Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. While passing the said judgment the Rent Controller directed the Nazir to submit a report for the purpose of consideration of entitlement of the tenant to the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act. The matter was taken up by the Rent Controller on 6.7.2010 on which date the Rent Controller perused the Nazir’s report who stated that the tenant even failed to deposit the rent regularly in compliance of the said order under Section 15(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Rent Controller by an order dated 6.7.2010 held that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act and passed eviction order under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The tenant challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, North Delhi (for short ‘Tribunal’). The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal on 12.1.2011 whereby the matter was remanded to the Rent Controller.
6. Pursuant to the order dated 12.1.2011 passed by the Tribunal, the Rent Controller allowed the tenant to record examination of two witnesses. He was also permitted to mark certain documents. The Rent Controller after hearing the parties, allowed the petition by order dated 5.7.2011 under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act by holding that the tenant failed to pay
