Back
1976 Supreme(Del) 146
High Court Of Delhi
M.M.LAL - Appellant
Versus
SUM BALBIR SINGH - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 38 of 1976
Decided On : 10/07/1976
C.S.VAIDYANATHAN, I.C.JAIN
An order under section 15(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 can be passed even if an order under section 15(1) cannot be passed due to a dispute as to the person entitled to payment of rent.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 15(1), 15(4) - RELATIONSHIP - ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF RENT - CONDITIONS - DISPUTE AS TO PERSON ENTITLED TO PAYMENT - ORDER UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) - EFFECT OF HIGH COURT ORDER SETTING ASIDE UNCONDITIONAL ORDER UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) - RESTITUTION OF RENT.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a petition for eviction against the tenant. The tenant raised preliminary objections that the landlord was not the sole owner of the premises and that he was entitled to a partial abatement of rent due to deprivation of a servant's quarter. The Additional Rent Controller initially passed an order under section 15(1) directing the tenant to deposit the arrears and current rent. The High Court set aside the order holding that an order under section 15(1) should not be made if the tenant raises any question as to the maintainability of the petition or his liability to pay rent. The Additional Rent Controller then passed an order under section 15(4) for payment of rent, which was set aside by the Rent Control Tribunal. The landlord appealed against the Tribunal's order, and the tenant filed a connected appeal against the refusal of restitution of rent.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that an order under section 15(4) can be passed even if an order under section 15(1) cannot be passed due to a dispute as to the person entitled to payment of rent. The court further held that the High Court's order setting aside the unconditional order under section 15(1) did not disentitle the Controller from passing an order under section 15(4). The court also held that the tenant was not entitled to restitution of rent, but directed the Additional Rent Controller to decide the question of who was entitled to the rent as soon as possible.
Issues: 1. Whether an order under section 15(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 can be passed even if an order under section 15(1) cannot be passed due to a dispute as to the person entitled to payment of rent? 2. Whether the High Court's order setting aside an unconditional order under section 15(1) disentitles the Controller from passing an order under section 15(4)? 3. Whether the tenant is entitled to restitution of rent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 15(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is designed to meet contingencies where the conditions laid down in section 15(1) are fulfilled but there still remains some dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable. 2. The High Court's order setting aside an unconditional order under section 15(1) does not disentitle the Controller from passing an order under section 15(4), as the two subsections serve different purposes. 3. The tenant is not entitled to restitution of rent, as the landlord was entitled to receive the rent from the tenant and the dispute as to who was entitled to the payment of rent would be decided soon.
Final Decision: The court allowed the landlord's appeal and restored the order of the Additional Rent Controller under section 15(4) of the Act. The court dismissed the tenant's appeal against the refusal of restitution of rent.
( 1 ) THE question for decision in this appeal is the relationship of sub-section (4) of section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 with sub-section (1) thereof. This judgment wilt also dispose of the connected S. A. O. No. 46 of 1976.
( 2 ) THE premises were originally leased to the respondent tenant by Smt. Tara Lal. Lt. Col. M. M. Lal is her son. He filed a petition for eviction against the respondent. Two preliminary objections to the said petition were urged by the respondent, namely, (1) that Shri Madan Mohan Lal, another son, and Miss Prema Lat, a daughter of late Mrs. Tara Lal, were co-heirs along with Lt. Col M. M. Lal and the petition for eviction could not be maintained by Lt. Col. M. M. Lal alone, and (2) that the tenant had been deprived of a servant s quarter by the landlord and was, therefore entitled to a partial abatement of rent, that is, Rs. 75. 00 per month out of the total rent of Rs. 900 per month. Initially, the Additional Rent Controller Shri P. K. Jain passed an order under sub-section (1) of section 15 directing the tenant to deposit for payment to the landlord, namely, Lt. Col. M. M. Lal, the arrears as well as the whole amount of the current rent at the rate of Rs. 900. 00 per month. Ultimately, the High Court (H. L. Anand, J.) set aside the said order holding inter alia, that if the tenant raises any question as to the maintainability of the petition for eviction or as to his liability to pay rent or a part thereof or claims abatement of rent, then an order under section 15 (1) should not be made except in so far as provided in sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of section 15 of the Act.
( 3 ) THEN the case came up before Additional Rent Controller Shri V. S. Aggarwal. He held that the High Court had set aside only an order under section 15 (1) of the Act but that decision was no bar to the passing of an order under section 15 (4) of the Act for payment of rent of Rs. 825. 00 per month. He also held that the amount of rent already paid by the tenant to the landlord was not liable to be refunded by way of restitution. Shri J. D. Jain, the Rent Control Tribunal, however, set aside the first part of the order passed by Shri V. S. Aggarwal and held that the result of the High Court decision was that not only an order under section 15 (1) but even an order under section 15 (4) could not be passed until the two preliminary issues raised in defence by the tenant were first decided. The Tribunal observed that sub-section (4) of section 15 was only supplemental to sub-section (1) and was designed to meet contingencies where the conditions laid down in sub-section (1) were fulfilled but there still remained some dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent was payable. The High Court had held that order under sub-section (1) could not be passed because the requirements of sub-section (1) were not fulfilled. For the same reason, the Tribunal held that an order under sub-section (4) also could not be passed. The Tribunal, however, upheld the second part of the order of the Additional Rent Controller refusing the restitution of rent to the tenant. The present appeal is filed by Lt. Col. M. M. Lal against the first part of the decision of the Tribunal refusing to pass an order under sub-section (4) of section 15 in his favour. The connected appeal is by the tenant against the refusal of the Tribunal to give him the relief of the restitution.
( 4 ) IT is well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court that an order under section 15 (1) [or under section 15 (2)] cannot be passed unless the following requirements thereof are fulfilled, namely :-
(1) The existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant,
(2) The existence of arrears of rent. [kulwant Kaur v. Jai Singh, ILR (1972) I Delhi 15] (1) and (3) Absence of deprivation of the tenant by the landlord of the whole of the premises or a part thereof, (N. K. Baslas v. Krishan Lal, 1973 R. L. R. 14) (2 ).
( 5 ) SITUA
