SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Del) 203

High Court Of Delhi
KRISHAN LAL @ KRISHAN KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
K.M.SHARMA - Respondent
Decided On : 02/23/1996

The tender of rent by the tenant prior to the service of notice of demand is not a valid tender within the eyes of law.

Headnote:

RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 14 (1) (A) AND 14 (2) - ARREARS OF RENT - TENDER OF RENT - WILFUL DEFAULT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, tenants in a property owned by the respondent, were served with a notice of demand for arrears of rent. They claimed to have tendered the rent through money orders, but the respondent refused to accept them. The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal found that the appellants were in arrears of rent and ordered their eviction.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the tender of rent by the appellants prior to the service of notice of demand was not a valid tender within the eyes of law. The Court also held that the appellants were in arrears of rent for three consecutive months and, therefore, could not get the benefit of the proviso to Section 14 (2) of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the tender of rent by the appellants prior to the service of notice of demand was a valid tender within the eyes of law. 2. Whether the appellants were in arrears of rent for three consecutive months.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the tender of rent by the appellants prior to the service of notice of demand was not a valid tender within the eyes of law because the tender of rent, if any, had to be made after the service of the notice and the tender of rent prior to the service of notice was of no help to the appellants in proving the case. 2. The Court held that the appellants were in arrears of rent for three consecutive months because they did not tender the rent for the months of January, February, and March, 1987, admittedly due from them within two months of the receipt of the notice of demand by them.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned judgments.

C. M. Nayar

( 1 ) THE present appeal arises from judgment dated February 5, 1993 passed by Mr. K. S. Gupta, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are that the respondent filed petition for eviction on July 5, 1987 on the allegations that Krishan Lal @ Krishan Kumar, since deceased, father of the appellants, was the tenant in the premises, as detailed in the petition for eviction, forming part of property No. B-3/16, Model Town, on a monthly rental of Rs. 20. 00 excluding water and electricity charges and after the purchase of the above property by him under registered Sale Deed dated December 9, 1980, the said Krishan Lal became a tenant under the respondent. It was alleged that after the death of Krishan Lal, the appellants neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent with effect from January 1, 1986 despite service of notice of demand dated May 7, 1987. It was further averred that in eviction Petition No. 122/1981 (K. M. Sharma v. Krishan Lal ). Krishan Lal was given benefit of Section 14 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act") by Shri J. M. Malik, the then Additional Rent Controller, vide order dated September 11,1985. The said order was confirmed in RCA No. 1245/1985 in favour of the appellants by Shri M. A. Khan, the then Rent Control Tribunal vide order dated July 28,1986. The appellants did not dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, it was pleaded 20. 00 per month despite the service of notice of demand. The earlier eviction petition was filed by the respondent, claiming the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 100. 00 per month and an order under Section 15 (1) of the Act was passed against their father at the rate of Rs. 20. 00 per month and that order was duly complied with. The said order was upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal as well as by the High Court which dismissed the appeal in limine. It was alleged that the respondent was adamant not to accept the rent at the rate of Rs. 20. 00 per month and the appellants were left with no alternative but to deposit the same in Court. They deposited the rent in the Court upto December, 1986 at the rate of Rs. 20. 00 per month. Thereafter rent for the months of January and February, 1987 at the same rate was remitted through money order to the respondent who refused to accept the same. Rent for the months of April and May, 1987 at the said rate was again tendered through money order to the respondent who refused to accept. The rent for the subsequent months of April and May, 1987 was sent through money order to the respondent who again refused to accept the same and sent a notice of demand dated May 7,1987. Receipt of this notice was admitted.

( 3 ) THE appellants also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for allowing them to examine the concerned postman who tendered the four Money Orders to the respondent by way of additional evidence. They took the plea that on the date of notice of demand dated May 7,1987 (Ex. RW I /pi)was served on the appellants, they were not in arrears of rent. The Additional Rent Controller examined the pleas raised in the petition. The main question which was considered was, whether, the appellants were in arrears of rent at the time of service of demand notice and whether the arrears were for three consecutive months or not. It was noticed by the Controller that the appellants deposited the rent for the period January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1986 vide challans Ex. RW I /l and 3. The respondent/landlord, however, contended that the earlier eviction petition between the parties was decided by the Court of Shri J. M. Malik, the then Rent Controller vide order dated September 11, 1985and,therefore, the deposit of rent by lhe appellants in the Court in the year 1986 was not a valid tender to the respondent. This plea was,however,rejected and it was held that thedepositof rent for the period of January 1, 1986 to Decembe





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top