Back
1981 Supreme(Del) 289
High Court Of Delhi
MAHENDER SINGH JAIN - Appellant
Versus
GANGA PARSHAD - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 156 of 1981
Decided On : 09/30/1981
A.K.GOHIL, ASHOK AGARWAL, K.K.MALHOTRA
An order under Section 15(2) of the Rent Control Act can be passed on the basis of prima facie evidence when there is a dispute regarding the agreed rent or the last paid rent.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 15(2) - ORDER FOR DEPOSIT OF RENT - DISPUTE REGARDING AGREED RENT OR LAST PAID RENT - PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE - PRODUCTION OF RENT RECEIPT - ORDER UNDER SECTION 15(2) TO BE PASSED ON THE BASIS OF LAST PAID RENT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-tenant challenged the order of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller directing him to pay or deposit arrears of rent at Rs. 100 per month from 1st September 1979. The appellant claimed that the agreed rent was Rs. 50 per month and that he had been deprived of a portion of the tenanted premises. The landlord filed a receipt dated 5th June 1976 indicating the rent at Rs. 100 per month, which was disputed by the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a dispute regarding the agreed rent or the last paid rent and that the receipt dated 5th June 1976 filed by the landlord was disputed. The court also found that there was no other evidence on record to determine that the rent was Rs. 100 per month. The court further found that the receipt dated 1st September 1964 indicating the rate of rent at Rs. 50 per month was genuine and that the story of the landlord that the rent was increased to Rs. 100 per month from 1st October 1970 was not reliable.
Issues: 1. Whether an order under Section 15(2) of the Rent Control Act can be passed when there is a dispute regarding the agreed rent or the last paid rent? 2. Whether the receipt dated 5th June 1976 filed by the landlord was genuine? 3. Whether the receipt dated 1st September 1964 indicating the rate of rent at Rs. 50 per month was genuine?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An order under Section 15(2) of the Rent Control Act can be passed on the basis of prima facie evidence when there is a dispute regarding the agreed rent or the last paid rent. 2. The receipt dated 5th June 1976 filed by the landlord was not genuine as it was disputed by the appellant and there was no other evidence on record to determine that the rent was Rs. 100 per month. 3. The receipt dated 1st September 1964 indicating the rate of rent at Rs. 50 per month was genuine as it was issued by the landlord's brother, who was also the landlord at that time, and there was no evidence to suggest that it was forged.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Rent Control Tribunal and the Additional Rent Controller, and directed the appellant-tenant to deposit all arrears of rent at Rs. 50 per month for the period from 1st September 1979 onwards till date within one month from the date of the order and continue to deposit future monthly rent at the said rate by the 15th of the succeeding month.
( 1 ) THIS second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Controller Act, 1958 (hereinafter called "the Act") by the tenant is directed against the order dated 12th March, 1981 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 12th February, 1981 directing the appellant to pay or deposit arrears of rent from 1st September, 1979 at Rs. 100. 00 per month within one month and to conti- nue to pay or deposit future monthly rent by the 15th of each succeeding month.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that the respondent-landlord on 21st February, 1978 filed an application for eviction of the appellant under Section 14 (1 ) (e) read with Section 25b of the Act. The tenant filed an application for leave to defend which was dismissed by the Controller and an order of eviction was passed on 28th November, 1978. He filed Civil Revision No. 216 of 1979. His dispossession was stayed on deposit of arrears of rent. He deposited Rs. 1150. 00 in the office of the Additional Rent Controller as rent for the period ending 31st August, 1979 at Rs. 50. 00 per month. By order dated 9th October, 1979 Civil Revision against the order dismissing his application for leave was set aside and he was granted leave to defend the eviction petition.
( 3 ) THE respondent in his eviction application has alleged that the portion consisting of one room on the ground floor and one room (wooden partition room) and kitchen on the terrace floor, was let out to the appellant for residence on 16th May, 1957 at Rs. 100. 00 per month excluding water and electricity charges.
( 4 ) THE appellant in his written statement has alleged that the rent of the premises was Rs. 50. 00 per month excluding water and electricity charges and that the premises were let with effect from 1st April, 1963 and that besides the premises admitted by the respondent the roof was also under his tenancy.
( 5 ) THE landlord filed an application under Section 15 (2) of the Act requiring the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent at Rs. 100. 00 per month from 16th May, 1972. He however admitted that the tenant had already deposited Rs. 1150. 00 as ordered by the High Court during the pendency of the Revision.
( 6 ) THE tenant in reply submitted that the agreed rent was Rs. 50. 00 per month, that he had been deprived of the portion of the tenanted premises and that the receipt filed by the landlord was a fabricated one. This receipt is dated 5th June, 1976. He further alleged that rent had already been paid for the period ending 31st August, 1979, and that the landlord was not entitled to demand rent till restoration of the possession of the roof to him. The Additional Controller without deciding whether the rent was Rs. 50. 00 or Rs. 100. 00 per month directed the tenant to deposit rent from 1-9-1979 at Rs. 100. 00 per month. In appeal this order was confirmed on the basis that the receipt dated 5th June, 1976 filed by the respondent prima facie indicating the rent at Rs. 100. 00 per month was purported to have been signed by the appellant.
( 7 ) THE appellant challenges the order for deposit on the ground that there was dispute regarding the agreed rent or the last paid rent and without deciding the rate of rent no order could be passed under Section 15 (2) of the Act. The appellant in this Court has also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a photostat copy of the rent receipt No. 351 dated 1. 9. 1964 indicating the rate of rent Rs. 50. 00 per month. This receipt is issued by the then landlord Shri Tirkha Ram, brother of the respondent.
( 8 ) IT is admitted at the Bar that a Civil suit for the recovery of arrears of rent at Rs. 100. 00 per month is pending and one of the disputes is whether the agreed rent was Rs. 100. 00 or Rs. 50. 00 per month.
( 9 ) WHEN there is a dispute about the agreed rent or the last paid rent an order under Section 15 of the Act can be passed in view of the Full Bench Judgment in
