Back
High Court Of Delhi
PRAN NATH KAPUR - Appellant
Versus
RAM SHIKSH MEHTA - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 263 of 1979
Decided On : 05/23/1980
RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 15 (2) - SECTION 25B - ORDER FOR DEPOSIT OF RENT - JURISDICTION OF CONTROLLER - SUMMARY TRIAL OF CERTAIN APPLICATIONS - NO APPEAL TO TRIBUNAL - REVISION TO HIGH COURT - RENT DEPOSITED BY TENANT - WITHDRAWAL - DISCRETION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant appealed against an order of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing his appeal against an order of the Rent Controller directing him to deposit arrears of rent under Section 15 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act). The tenant argued that the controller had no jurisdiction to pass such an order in proceedings brought under Section 25b of the Act, which provides for a summary trial of certain applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the controller had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 15 (2) of the Act against the tenant to deposit arrears of rent if the proceedings were brought under Section 25b of the Act. The court found that the procedure under Section 25b was mandatory and that the tribunal had no role to play in such proceedings. The court also held that an order under Section 15 (2) could not be made in proceedings under Section 25b because such an order would be appealable to the tribunal, which would be inconsistent with the scheme of Section 25b.
Issues: 1. Whether the controller had jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 15 (2) of the Act against the tenant to deposit arrears of rent if the proceedings were brought under Section 25b of the Act. 2. Whether an order under Section 15 (2) could be made in proceedings under Section 25b.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the procedure under Section 25b was mandatory and that the tribunal had no role to play in such proceedings. The court also held that an order under Section 15 (2) could not be made in proceedings under Section 25b because such an order would be appealable to the tribunal, which would be inconsistent with the scheme of Section 25b. 2. The court found that the controller had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 15 (2) of the Act against the tenant to deposit arrears of rent if the proceedings were brought under Section 25b of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the controller directing the tenant to deposit arrears of rent. However, the court refused to allow the tenant to withdraw the rent that he had already deposited.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 11th September, 1979.
( 2 ) THE appellant is a tenant. The respondents are the landlords sued the tenant for ejectment on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14 ( I ) (e) read with Section 25b of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act ). During the pendency of the case for ejectment the landlords made an application to the rent controller under Section 15 (2) asking him to order the tenant to deposit arrears of rent. The controller made the order on August 29,1979. He directed the tenant, to deposit all arrears of rent and future rent month by month in accordance with Section 15 (2 ).
( 3 ) FROM the controller s order the tenant appealed to the rent control tribunal. Followingmydccisioninj?. Jf. Parikh v. Uma yerma, A. I. R. 1979 Delhi 17 and a subsequent decision of Ranganathanj. in Som Nath Raina v. Kirpa Ram, S. A. 0. 295 of 1977 decided on August 10, 1979 (1979) 16 D. L. T. 327 the tribunal held that the appeal was incompetent. So the appeal was dismissed and is not maintainable.
( 4 ) THE tenant brought the present appeal. He asked for a stay of the operation of the order of the controller requiring him to deposit rent. I refused stay. Because till then this question had not been mooted and decided by this court.
( 5 ) ON March 19, 1980 I heard the appeal. The tenant s counsel was present. The landlord s counsel was absent. Following mv previous decision in Ram Nath v. 0. P. Khadria,l980 Raj. L. R. 36)- (1985) 17 D. L. T. 435 I allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the rent controller dated August 29,1979.
( 6 ) ON April 18, 1980 the landlords made an application for a rehearing of the appeal. I agree to rehear the appeal.
( 7 ) AFTER hiring elaborate arguments of counsel for the parties I do not think I ought to change my view. I remain of the same opinion. In Ram Nath s case (supra), I have held that the controller has no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 15 (2) of the Act against the tenant to deposit arrears of rent if the proceedings are brought under Section 25b of the Act.
( 8 ) CHAPTER III-A was introduced by the Amendment Act 18 of 1970 (w. e. f. 1-12-1975 ). Section 25b of this chapter is one of those "improvements" that delight draftsmen who make them and tantalise judges who then have to interpret them. It provides for a "summary trial of certain applications" as the title suggests. Under this newly introduced provision every application by a landlord for recovery of possession on the ground of bona fide requirement specified in Clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act has to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 25b. The procedure is compulsory and not optional. The words used are: "every application. . . . . . . . . shall be dealt with. . . . . . . . . " This shows that the procedure is mandatory. It is not elective, as was argued.
( 9 ) NOW the procedure is indicated in Chapter III-A. The tenant has to obtain leave. On leave being granted the tenant can contest the application. But if leave is refused the controller passes an order for recovery of possession straightway. From the order of possession made by the controller no appeal or second appeal lies. A revision to the High Court is provided. In R. K. Parikh s case I held that no appeal lies to the tribunal from a case heard and decided under Section 25b. The Supreme Court has now expressly approved of Parikh s case : (See Vinod Kumar Chaudhary v. Smt. Narain Devi Tawja (1980) 2 S. C. C. 120, 128 per Murtaza Fazal All, Kailasam and Koshal JJ. ).
( 10 ) IS it open to the controller to require the tenant to deposit rent under Section 15 (2) of the Act when the landlord s case is being tried in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 25b? This is the real question for decision. The question is one of principle. In my opinion an application for an order under Section (15)2 can
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
