Back
1976 Supreme(Del) 64
High Court Of Delhi
DAYA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
BHAGWAN SINGH AND SONS - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 183 of 1971
Decided On : 04/29/1976
F.C.Bedi, P.C.Khanna, S.K.PURI
The notice of demand remains effective until complied with by the tenant or waived by the landlord. The duty of the Controller is to order the payment of only the legally recoverable rent from the tenant.
Headnote:
Rent Control Act - Section 14(1)(a), Section 15(1) - The notice of demand need not be confined to the legally recoverable amount. The duty of the Controller is to order the payment of only the legally recoverable rent from the tenant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant landlord served a notice on the respondents requiring them to pay arrears of rent. The respondents did not comply with the notice. The appellant filed a petition for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. The Controller ordered the respondents to pay the arrears of rent. The respondents appealed against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of section 14(1)(a) and section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It held that the notice of demand need not be confined to the legally recoverable amount. The duty of the Controller is to order the payment of only the legally recoverable rent from the tenant. The court also discussed the validity of the notice and the concept of cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The notice of demand does not become ineffective unless complied with by the tenant or waived by the landlord. The notice remains alive and the cause of action remains effective until it is withdrawn by the landlord or extinguished by an act or order of the court. The duty of the Controller is to order the payment of only the legally recoverable rent from the tenant.
Result: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, and confirmed the order of the Controller. The respondents were given one month to comply with the order.
( 1 ) THE material facts in the appeal are that the respondents are tenant in respect of a shop in Connaught Place on a rent of Rs. 90. 53 per month. On 17th November, 1963 the appellant landlord served a notice on the respondents requiring them to pay arrears of rent for the period from September, 1962 to October, 1963. It is the admitted case of the parties that the said notice had not been complied with within the period of two months as required by clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 therein referred to as the Act nor has the same been paid even by now.
( 2 ) ON 8th April, 1969 the appellant landlord filed the petition for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent and unlawful subletting, the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. Since the eviction has been sought on the ground mentioned in clause (a) the controller was required by section 15 of the Act to pass an order for deposit of arrears and future rent. The appellant landlord, however, filed an application on 27th October, 1969 requesting the Controller to pass an order for payment of arears which were legally recoverable. On that date, it is not disputed, that the arrears only for the period from first April, 1969 were legally recoverable and the arrears for the previous period were barred by time and could not be recovered in a court of law. The respondents were, however, liable to pay future rent from the date of the order as provided by section 15 of the Act. The Controller allowed the said application and repelled the contention of the respondents that the notice of demand referred to above had exhausted itself and was not available to constitute a good cause of action for passing of an order under section 15 (1) of the Act.
( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved, the respondents filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which reversed the order and accepted the objection of the respondents that the notice relied upon by the appellant did not claim arrears of rent legally recoverable in the petition and as such could not form the basis of an order under section 15 (1) of the Act. This order of the Tribunal has been challenged in this appeal.
( 4 ) REFERENCE may be made to clause (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 14 of the Act as well as section 15 (1) of the Act. They respectively read as follows :
"14 (1) (A) : that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882); 15 (1): In every proceeding for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, the Controller shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, make an order directing the tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Controller within one month of the date of the order, an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid for the period for which the arrears of rent were legally recoverable from the tenant including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the months previous to that in which payment or deposit is made and to continue to pay or deposit, month by month, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. "
( 5 ) THE scheme of the Act appears to be that the landlord is required to serve the notice of demand for the arrears of rent on the tenant in the manner provided by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The tenant by clause (a) has been given the right and option to pay or tender the arrears of rent which be legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which the notice had been served on him. The requiremen
