Back
High Court Of Delhi
S.S.PURI - Appellant
Versus
R.CHANDER SHEKAR - Respondent
Civil 807 of 1992
Decided On : 12/13/1993
ORDER 39 RULE 10, ORDER 12 RULE 1, SECTION 151 CPC - RENT CONTROL ACT - ORDER FOR DEPOSIT OF RENT - JURISDICTION - ADMISSION OF LIABILITY - INHERENT JURISDICTION - POWER OF COURT TO PASS ORDERS AND DECREES ON ADMISSION - DISCRETION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Landlord filed a suit for possession and recovery of rent and damages. He also filed an application under Section 151 CPC for direction to the tenant to deposit arrears of rent and continue depositing rent month by month. The trial court dismissed the application. The landlord filed a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the application. It held that the court had the jurisdiction to pass an order for deposit of money pending decision of a suit under Order 39 Rule 10 and Order 12 Rule 1 CPC. It also held that the invocation of Section 151 CPC in the present case would neither be in conflict with the provisions of the Code nor against the intention of the legislature.
Issues: Whether the court had the jurisdiction to pass an order for deposit of money pending decision of a suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the court had the jurisdiction to pass an order for deposit of money pending decision of a suit under Order 39 Rule 10 and Order 12 Rule 1 CPC. It also held that the invocation of Section 151 CPC in the present case would neither be in conflict with the provisions of the Code nor against the intention of the legislature.
Final Decision: The court accepted the revision petition and directed the tenant to pay to the landlord the arrears of rent and future rent.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition raises a question which is increasingly haunting the landlords as well as the tenants of such premises as are seemingly beyond the pale of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
( 2 ) AS we all know, nothing in the Delhi Rent Control Act applies to any premises, whether residential or not, whose monthly rent exceeds three thousand and five hundred rupees. Suits, therefore, are filed depending upon whether the Delhi Rent Control Act is applicable or otherwise.
( 3 ) IN November, 1991, the petitioner, claiming himself to be the owner- landlord of the suit premises filed a suit for possession and recovery of rent for the months of April and May, 1991 at the agreed rate of Rs. 3800. 00 per month besides damages at the rate of Rs. 5000. 00 per month with effect from June, 1991.
( 4 ) IN December, 1991 the petitioner moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for direction to the respondent-tenant to deposit arrears of rent with effect from April, 1991 and thereafter to continue depositing rent month by month by the 7th of each succeeding month. The respondent-tenant contested the application and took the plea that no order, as prayed for, could be passed.
( 5 ) THE learned Additional District Judge who was seized of the matter dismissed the application by his order dated July 27, 1992. He observed:.
". . . SINCE the question of damages at Rs. 5000. 00 p. m. as well as the alleged rent at the rate of Rs. 3800. 00 p. m. are both disputed, no order on the application can be passed as the same is likely to prejudice the defendant. " Hence this civil revision by the landlord.
( 6 ) BEFORE I proceed to deal with the merits, I may mention that the respondent-tenant did not put in appearance despite service and as such I did not have the benefit of counsel from that side.
( 7 ) I may say at the outset that I do tend to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitionerr that the learned trial judge ought to have devoted more attention to the issue raised and the facts involved. Even a cursory look at the application would have shown that the petitioner-landlord had not sought any order at the rate of Rs. 5000. 00 per month. Rather, he took a categorical stand that for the purpose of the application he was praying for an order only at the agreed rate of rent, that is, at the rate of Rs. 3800. 00 per month. This is amply borne out not only from the tenor of the application but also from the two prayers made which run as under:
" (I) that the defendants be directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 26,600. 00 (sic) being a total arrear of rent with the plaintiff payable by defendant since April 1991 to December, 1991; (ii) to direct the defendant to deposit by 7th of each month, the monthly accepted rent of Rs. 3800. 00 for the premises in question to the plaintiff;"
( 8 ) AN equally cursory look at the reply to the application would have made it clear that the respondent-tenant had nowhere disputed the rate of agreed rent. Even the written statement contains clear admission to the effect that the agreed rate of rent is Rs. 3800. 00 per month and that rent with effect from April, 1991 is due though adjustment of a sum of Rs. 21,000. 00 is claimed. This being the position, for deciding the application, what has been claimed as damages was not relevant and as regards the agreed rate of rent, there was no dispute atall. The very bastion of the order of the learned trial Judge thus crumbles to the ground.
( 9 ) HOWEVER, this is not the end of the matter. The question is, can an order of the kind sought by the petitioner bepassed? Would such an order not virtually amount to adecree for recovery of rent/mesne profits without there being any decree to that effect? Of course,under the Delhi Rent Controlact,wehavesection 15 which authorises the passing of such an order. But then, that is a separate matter. Does Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure invest the Court with such power? Can a Court award a d
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
