High Court Of Delhi
RAJESHWARHWA - Appellant
Versus
SUSHMA GOVIL - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 378 of 87
Decided On : 10/27/1988
EVICTION SUIT - NON-PAYMENT OF RENT - INTERIM ORDER UNDER SECTION 15(1) OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT - UNREGISTERED LEASE DEED - ADMISSIBILITY - POWER OF ATTORNEY - NOTARIAL ACTS OF NOTARIES OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES - RECOGNITION - RATIFICATION OF UNAUTHORIZED ACT - STRIKE OUT OF DEFENCE UNDER SECTION 15(7) OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT - JUDICIAL DISCRETION.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent brought two eviction petitions against the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent. The appellant pleaded that he was not the tenant and that the rate of rent was lower than claimed. The Rent Controller made interim orders under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act requiring the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent. The appellant did not comply with the orders and his defence was struck out under Section 15(7) of the Act. The appellant appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal, which dismissed the appeals. The appellant then filed appeals to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
1. An unregistered lease deed can be looked into to see who has been inducted as a tenant, as it is a collateral purpose. 2. The power of attorney executed by the respondent in favor of her father to institute the eviction petitions was valid, as the notarial acts of Notaries Public of the United States of America are recognizable in India. 3. The respondent had ratified the acts of her father in instituting the eviction petitions by executing a subsequent power of attorney. 4. The Rent Controller was justified in striking out the appellant's defence under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as the appellant had wilfully and contumaciously failed to comply with the order made under Section 15(1) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether an unregistered lease deed can be looked into to see who has been inducted as a tenant. 2. Whether the power of attorney executed by the respondent in favor of her father to institute the eviction petitions was valid. 3. Whether the respondent had ratified the acts of her father in instituting the eviction petitions. 4. Whether the Rent Controller was justified in striking out the appellant's defence under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An unregistered lease deed can be looked into to see who has been inducted as a tenant, as it is a collateral purpose. 2. The power of attorney executed by the respondent in favor of her father to institute the eviction petitions was valid, as the notarial acts of Notaries Public of the United States of America are recognizable in India. 3. The respondent had ratified the acts of her father in instituting the eviction petitions by executing a subsequent power of attorney. 4. The Rent Controller was justified in striking out the appellant's defence under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as the appellant had wilfully and contumaciously failed to comply with the order made under Section 15(1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS judgment shall dispose of both the appeals brought under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Two eviction petitions were brought by the respondent against the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent. The complete ground floor of house No. E-36, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi, was stated to have been let out to the appellant at the rental of Rs. 2400 per mouth. Initially the letting took place vide lease agreement dated Juily II, 1980, and the same was renewed vide agreement dated July 1, 1982. The arrears of rent was stated to be due with effect from January 1, 1984. which were allegedly not paid by the appellant in spite of service of notice of demand dated March 12, 1985. In the second eviction petition, it was pleaded that the complete basement of the same honye stood let out to the appellant a the rental of Rs. 1,000 per month vide lease deed dated October 1. 1982, with a stipulation that the rent was to be increased to Rs. 1,200 per month with effect from January 1, 1983, and it was pleaded that arrears of rent were due with effect from January 1, 1984, which were neither paid nor tendered in spite of service of notice of demand dated March 12, 1985. The ground of mis-user covered by clause (c) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was also pleaded but that ground was negatived and no longer survives for decision in these appeals.
( 2 ) IN the first case, the appellant pleaded that he, in fact, was not the tenant on the ground floor of the s. :id building and the premises were actually let out to M/s. Wadbrow India (P) Limped and thus, the eviction petition against him was not maintainable. On merits, the plea taken was that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,000 per month and there were no arrears payable as alleged in the petition. The receipt of the notice of demand was also denied. Similarly, in the second petition, the appellant took the plea that in fact, M/s. Spectra India is the tenant and he took the plea that the rate of rent is Rs. 1,000 per month and no arrears of rent, as claimed in the petition, were due. In replications, the respondent conll-overted the pleas of the appellant and reiterated her own pleas and in the other case she pleaded that M/s. Spectra India is not a legal entity as the appellant is the proprietor of the said firm. It was controverted in respect of the first petition that M/s. Wadbrow India (P) Ltd. is the tenant. In both the cases separate orders under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act were made on October 18, 1986. The appellant filed appeals against those orders but ultimately he withdrew those appeals which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide orders of the Rent Control Tribunal dated November 24, 1986. However, the Tribunal granted time till December 31, 1986, for complying with the order made under Section 15 (1 ). The appellant did not deposit any rent whatsoever in compliance with the said orders made under Section 15 (1 ). Applications under Section 15 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act were moved for striking out the defence of the appellant in both the cases. In spite of the fact that adjournments were sought for filing the reply to the said applications but no reply was filed. On January 5, 1987, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant and defence of the appellant in both the cases was struck out as the appellant had not deposited even single paisa in compliance with the. orders made under Section 15 (1 ). After recording the statement of M. S. Chaturvedi, father of the respondent, who also claimed to be attorney of the respondent, the eviction orders were passed against the appellant which were challenged by filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal while admitting the appeals granted stay of dispossession of the appellant in both the case subject to the appellant depositing the entire arrears of rent and month to month rent. The appellant, in order to save himself from being dispossesse
Padma Vithoba Chakkayya v. Mohd. Multani and Another
Satish Chand Makhan and others v. Govardhan Das Byas and Others
Mangal Singh v. Tek Ram and Others
J.N. Banerjee v. S. L. Bhargava
National and Grindlays Bank Limited v. M/s. World Science News and Others
Jugraj Singh and Another v. Jaswant Singh and Others
R. C. Cooper v. Union of India
K. K. Kochuni v. State of Punjab
Ballabhdas Mathuradas Lakhani and Others v. Municipal Committee, Malkapur
Bharat Kala Bhandar v. Mluicipal Committee of Dhamangaon
Ambika Prasad Mishra v. Stflte of U.P. and Others
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur
Dahyabhai Girdhardas v. Bobaii Dahyaji Kotwal and Others
Nadella Satyanarayana v. Yamanoori Venkata Subbiah
All India Reporter Limited v. Ram Chandra Dhondo Datar
Ashok Kumar Dev and Another v. Gobinda Chandra Dev and Others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.