Back
High Court Of Delhi
BANARSI DASS - Appellant
Versus
BINDRA BANGUPTA - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 12 of 1995
Decided On : 05/01/1998
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 15 (7) - STRIKING OUT OF DEFENCE - DISCRETION OF RENT CONTROLLER - DELAY IN DEPOSIT OF RENT - EXTENTUATING CIRCUMSTANCES - WILFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS DEFAULT - INTERPRETATION OF ORDER - EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY RENT CONTROLLER.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants, legal heirs of the original tenant, challenged an order striking out their defense in an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The order was passed due to non-compliance with an order under Section 15(1) of the Act, directing payment of arrears of rent. Appellants had deposited the arrears in compliance with the order but withdrew the excess amount upon a favorable order from the Rent Control Tribunal, which was later set aside by the High Court. Appellants then applied for extension of time and permission to pay in installments, which was denied, leading to the impugned order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellants' delay in depositing the rent was not intentional or deliberate, and that they had substantially complied with the order. The court also found that the appellants had offered to clear the entire amount of arrears by making payment in installments, which showed their willingness to comply with the order. The court concluded that the Rent Control Tribunal erred in interfering with the discretion exercised by the Additional Rent Controller in declining the request for striking out the defense.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants' delay in depositing the rent was intentional or deliberate? 2. Whether the appellants had substantially complied with the order? 3. Whether the appellants' offer to clear the entire amount of arrears by making payment in installments showed their willingness to comply with the order? 4. Whether the Rent Control Tribunal erred in interfering with the discretion exercised by the Additional Rent Controller?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellants' delay in depositing the rent was not intentional or deliberate, as they had earlier deposited the entire arrears of rent in compliance with the order and had only withdrawn the excess amount upon a favorable order from the Rent Control Tribunal, which was later set aside by the High Court. 2. The court held that the appellants had substantially complied with the order, as they had deposited the entire arrears of rent within the time granted by the Additional Rent Controller. 3. The court held that the appellants' offer to clear the entire amount of arrears by making payment in installments showed their willingness to comply with the order. 4. The court held that the Rent Control Tribunal erred in interfering with the discretion exercised by the Additional Rent Controller in declining the request for striking out the defense, as the Additional Rent Controller was well within his power and authority in declining the request.
Final Decision: The appeal of the appellants was allowed, the order of the Rent Control Tribunal was set aside, and the application of the respondent for striking out the defense of the appellants was rejected.
( 1 ) THIS second appeal by the appellants/tenants is against the order dated 13. 7. 1995, of the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the appeal of the respondent/landlord and directed the defence of the appellants/tenants to be struck out under Section 15 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the "act". The Rent Control Tribunal reached the conclusion that the appellants had flouted the orders of the Additional Rent Controller (A. R. C. ). The appellants action in preferring an application before the A. R. C. for extension of time to deposit. and for payment in instalments, just two days before the expiry of the stipulated period was taken as manifestation of the intention of not complying with the orders. Non deposit even after the respondent had moved an application for striking out the defence, was taken as indicative of the deliberate, -wilful and contumacious non-compliance with the order under Section 15 (1) of the Act.
( 2 ) THE relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal maybe noted :
(I) Appellants are the legal heirs of Shri Balwant Singh, original tenant of Shop No. 53-B, Khan Market, New Delhi A notice had been served on the appellants in August, 1988, claiming the rent to be Rs. l,500. 00 per month. Aneviction petition was filed on the ground specified under Section 14 (l) (a) (b) of the Act. Appellants had been depositing the rent under Section 27 of the Act@ Rs. 450. 00. On 17. 10. 1989, an order under Section 15 (1) of the Act was passed, in terms of which the appellants were directed to pay arrears of rent w. e. f 1. 4. 1988 @ Rs. l,500. 00 per month, after adjusting the amount deposited. The learned A. R. C. in passing the order had taken note of the fact that the rent @ Rs. l,500. 00 per month had been paid upto March, 1988 voluntarily. The appellants challenged the said order in appeal before the learned Rent Control Tribunal. The learned Rent Control Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for fixation of interim standard rent before passing of order under Section 15 (1) of the Act. The respondent challenged the said order, passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal dated 21. 3. 1990 and this Court in SAO No. 26/90, vide order dated 21. 8. 1991, set aside the order of the Rent Control Tribunal and restored the order dated 17. 10. 1989, under Section 15 (1) of the Act, passed by the A. R. C. This Court directed that copy of the order dated 21. 8. 1991 be sent to the lower Court for compliance.
( 3 ) IT is pertinent to notice that the appellants in pursuance to the order dated 17. 10. 1989, had deposited the entire arrears of rent in terms thereof. However, the appellants upon the order dated 21. 3. 199u, being passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, applied for and withdrew the amount deposited by them in excess of Rs. 450. 00 per month in terms of order dated 17. 10. 1989.
( 4 ) FOLLOWING the order dated 21. 8. 1991, the appellants on 19. 9. 1991, moved an application before the A. R. C. , stating that due to financial hardship, they are not in a position to clear the entire arrears of Rs. 63,000. 00 and sought direction to be permitted to deposit Rs. 20,000. 00 by the next date of hearing and Rs. 10,000. 00 every three months,in addition to Rs. l,500. 00 per month. Respondenton 29. 11. 1991, while the application for direction was pending, moved application under Section 15 (7) of the Act, for striking out the defence of the appellants.
( 5 ) THE learned A. R. C. after hearing the parties, vide order dated 30. 1. 1992, held that though the appellants were required to deposit the arrears of rent within one month from the date of the order of the High Court dated 21. 8. 1991, however, in view of the application moved prior to expiry of the period seeking extension and directions, he held that the appellants were ready and willing to clear the arrears of rent and interest of justice would be met if some short time was given to deposit the
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
