Back
High Court Of Delhi
ROXY ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
ARUNA RAINA - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 215 of 1991
Decided On : 07/09/1993
RENT CONTROL ACT - EVICTION - NON PAYMENT OF RENT - VALIDITY OF NOTICE - ATTACHMENT ORDER - CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT - [SECTION 14 (1) (A), 15 (7), 106 TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958] - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose between a landlady and her tenants, M/s. Roxy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner) and M/s. Roxy Steel Wires Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No. 2), over non-payment of rent. The landlady filed an eviction petition against both tenants under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, alleging arrears of rent from October 1985 to July 1986. The tenants claimed that they had paid rent up to June 1986 and that an attachment order by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) prevented them from paying rent to the landlady.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenants had not paid rent from October 1985 to May 1988, despite receiving a valid notice of demand and determination of tenancy. The court also found that the tenants had dishonored a cheque deposited with the MCD and had failed to comply with the order of the Additional Rent Controller to deposit arrears of rent. The court held that the tenants' conduct was contumacious and that they were not entitled to the protection of the Rent Control Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the notice of demand and determination of tenancy was valid. 2. Whether the attachment order by the MCD prevented the tenants from paying rent to the landlady. 3. Whether the tenants' conduct was contumacious.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notice of demand and determination of tenancy was valid, despite the fact that the endorsement on the notice sent to the petitioner was not signed. The court reasoned that the notice had been signed by counsel for the landlady and that the absence of signatures after the endorsement did not mean that the notice itself had not been signed. 2. The court held that the attachment order by the MCD did not prevent the tenants from paying rent to the landlady. The court reasoned that the order required the tenants to pay rent due or falling due to the Corporation immediately and every month thereafter as and when it becomes due. The tenants did not pay or deposit the rent with the landlady or the MCD even after service of notice. 3. The court held that the tenants' conduct was contumacious. The court noted that the tenants had failed to pay rent for several months, had dishonored a cheque deposited with the MCD, and had failed to comply with the order of the Additional Rent Controller to deposit arrears of rent.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller.
( 1 ) THE first page of the lease deed dated 29/10/1980 (EX. Public Witness 1/1) in respect of premises in question shows that it has been entered into between Lessor, Mrs. Aruna Raina- respondent No. 1 and the lessee M/s. Roxy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd-petitionerheerein. The last page of the lease deed mentions the name of M/s. Roxy Steel Wires Pvt Ltd. respondent No. 2 as lessee and has been signed by its Managing Director. The rate of rent stipulated is Rs. 2,443. 20 per month. One of the terms of the lease deed stipulates that the lessee shall be entitled to renew the initial lease after every three years with an increase of 15% in the rent over the last rent paid and other terms and conditions would remain the same. A registered notice dated ll/03/1985 was sent by respondent No. l to respondent No. 2,inter-alia, alleging that respondent No. 2 is liable to eviction as it is a contumacious defaulter in payment of rent and was in arrears since October 1985 and in respect thereof demand for payment was made. A copy of the notice was also sent to the petitioner stating that in case the petitioner treats itself to be the tenant it should comply with the requirements of the notice within the stipulated period failing which petition for eviction shall be filed against it also.
( 2 ) PETITIONER and respondent No. 2 are sister concerns. The eviction petition was filed by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2 and the petitioner seeking an order of eviction on ground of non payment of rent under section 14 (l) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and on certain other grounds but for the present purpose the ground of non payment of rent alone is relevant. It has been,inter-alia, pleaded in the eviction petition that the tenants had not paid arrears of rent from October 1985 to July 1986 despite notice dated ll/03/1986 and that a sum of Rs. 28,906. 80p calculated at the rate of Rs. 2809. 68 was due as rent from the tenants for the period from 01/10/1985 to 31/07/1986. The landlady stated in the eviction petition that the lease deed is between her and respondent No. 2 but in the body of the lease the name of the lessee has been given as that of the petitioner as she did not notice this discrepancy at the time of execution of the lease deed. The landlady prayed that in the event of either of the said two companies being held as tenants the notice regarding non payment of rent and termination of tenancy had been served on both and thus both the respondents in the eviction petition were liable to vacate the premises as neither had paid the arrears of rent. Para 3 (b) of the eviction petition which requires a landlord to state the name and address of the tenant/tenants, the names of both the companies have been mentioned as tenants.
( 3 ) A joint written statement was filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 2,inter-alia, pleading that rent upto June, 1986 had already been paid to the landlady. It was further pleaded that the tenants had been served an attachment order by Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide letter dated 07/03/1986 and thus the landlady was not entitled to claim any rent till the attachment subsists. Para 3 (b) of the eviction petition was not denied as it was stated that the said para needs no reply. It was also pleaded that the clause of 15% increase of rent was illegal. Regarding notice dated ll/03/1986 the tenants pleaded that "para 18 (b) is wrong and denied. It is denied that any such notice was served, as alleged, much less a valid notice. "
( 4 ) ON 04/07/1987 leamed Additional Rent Controller, after,inter-alia,noticing that cheque of Rs. 11,238. 72 representing rent for the month of October, 1985 to January 1986 was dishonoured came to the conclusion that petitioner was in arrears of rent with effect from 01/10/1985 upto date at the rate of Rs. 2809. 68. The petitioner was accordingly. directed to deposit Rs. 29,904. 00 with MCD out of arrears of rent and pay or deposit the balance within a month from
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
