Back
High Court Of Delhi
SUNDER LAL - Appellant
Versus
JEET SINGH ETC - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 41 of 1977
Decided On : 05/24/1977
RENT CONTROL ACT - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - SECTIONS 14 (1) (A), 15 (1), 38 (3), 39 - APPEAL AGAINST ORDER REFUSING STAY - MAINTAINABILITY - SCOPE OF STAY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tenant, filed an appeal against an order of the Rent Control Tribunal refusing to stay further proceedings in an eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The appellant had earlier applied for stay of the order under appeal but was refused.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appeal was maintainable under Section 39 of the Act, as the order refusing stay was an order having a substantive effect on the merits of the case. The court further held that the order under appeal was an order under the Act, as the Tribunal had all the powers of a Civil Appellate Court when hearing an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal against the order refusing stay was maintainable under Section 39 of the Act? 2. Whether the order refusing stay was an order under the Act? 3. Whether the order under appeal had a substantive effect on the merits of the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appeal was maintainable under Section 39 of the Act, as the order refusing stay was an order having a substantive effect on the merits of the case. The court reasoned that the order under appeal had a distinct bearing on the merits and future trial of the eviction proceedings, and therefore, must be classified as being an order having a substantive effect on the merits of the case. 2. The court held that the order refusing stay was an order under the Act, as the Tribunal had all the powers of a Civil Appellate Court when hearing an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The court held that the order under appeal had a substantive effect on the merits of the case, as it would affect the manner in which the trial could go on further before the Controller. The court reasoned that if the appeal against the order under appeal was decided after the eviction proceedings were over, it may create many difficulties regarding how the new order was to be given effect to.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal to the extent that it stayed the passing of an order under Section 15 (7) by the Rent Controller till the appeal against the order under Section 15 (1) was decided. The court left the parties to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal u/s 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against an order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal refusing stay of further proceedings during the pendency of an appeal against an order passed U/s 15 (1 ). At first sight, this order seems to be entirely discretionary and also appears to involve no substantial question of law. In addition to the circumstances in which the stay order had been refused, it may also be mentioned that earlier the appellant had applied for stay of the order under appeal but stay was refused. The question for consideration is whether the Rent Control Tribunal was right in refusing the stay of further proceedings before the Controller, and whether this appeal is maintainable.
( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the points of law involved in this appeal it is necessary to refer to the scheme of the Rent Control Act in respect of eviction petitions U/s 14 (1) (a) of the Act. In such a case, the landlord alleges that the tenant has not paid or tendered arrears of rent in spite of the service of a notice of demand in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. A similar provision was also in the Acts of 1947 and 1952. The way in which the tenant could avoid an ejectment order under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1947 was that he had to deposit the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing along with the costs of the suit. The provision was altered in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1952 whereby U/s 13 (2) the said arrears could be deposited either on the first date of hearing or within such further time as may be allowed by the Court. This provision has been replaced by Sections 14 (2) and 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Now the tenant does not have to pay the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing but has to 409 410 await the passing of a specific order U/s 15 (I) which sub section permits the Controller to determine the quantum of arrears and enables him to order the deposit of those arrears within one month and subsequent monthly rent by the 15th day of the succeeding month and so on. If such a deposit is made then Section 14 (2) provides that ejectment on this ground will not be ordered. Therefore, the trial of an eviction petition brought U/s 14 (1) (a) involves in the first stage the passing of an order U/s 15 (1) and if such an order is complied with then the tenant avoids ejectment U/s 14 (2 ). Here, again there is a proviso that this advantage cannot be availed by the tenant on more than one occasion. If the tenant defaults for a further period of three months in paying the rent he cannot avoid ejectment by resort to Section 14 (2 ). Therefore it will be seen that the passing of an order U/s 15 (1) is a part and parcel of the trial of an eviction petition brought U/s 14 (1) (a ). The first stay application made by the appellant was for the stay of the order U/s 15 (1) which was rightly disallowed by the Rent Control Tribunal, because by not complying with the order, the tenant would gain time without paying any rent. The second stay application moved by the appellant is for a different purpose. It is a for the stay of further proceedings. The question may well be be asked what is the nature of these further proceedings ?
( 3 ) THE next stage in the proceedings is that either an eviction order has to be passed u/s 14 (1) (a) or the defence has to be struck off u/s 15 (7) (this is on the assumption that the order u/s 15 (1) has not been complied with ). If this second stage is reached then another appealable order will have been passed by the Rent Controller leading to yet another appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. Assuming that again the Tribunal does not stay the proceedings, there may be a third order, i. e. the ejectment order leading to yet another appeal. The result will be that in spite of one appeal u/s 15 (1) having been filed the Tribunal will be dealing with two extra appeals one against the order u/s 15 (7) and
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
