Back
1974 Supreme(Del) 44
High Court Of Delhi
KAMLA L.M.HARVETTAKER - Appellant
Versus
OM PARKASH - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 245 of 1973
Decided On : 02/18/1974
K.L.RATHI, KRISHNAN G.PILLAI, R.K.MAKHIJA, V.K.MENON
A tenant who has been given the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, by being allowed to make payments as directed by Section 15 (1), cannot invoke the proviso to Section 14 (2) to avoid eviction for a subsequent default in paying rent.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - SECTION 14 (1) (A), 14 (2), 15 (1), 15 (7) - DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF RENT - EVICTION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - DEFAULT IN COMPLYING WITH ORDER UNDER SECTION 15 (1) - CONSEQUENCES - PROVISO TO SECTION 14 (2) - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant, Rajindar Sachar, defaulted in paying rent for the month of February 1971, despite an order under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, directing her to deposit the arrears of rent. The landlord, Om Parkash, filed an application for eviction under clause (a) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal found that the tenant had not paid or tendered the arrears of rent within two months of the service of the notice of demand, and that she had defaulted in complying with the order under Section 15 (1) by depositing the rent for February 1971 on 16th March instead of 15th March. The courts rejected the tenant's argument that the default was not contumacious and that the eviction order should be set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act, which provides protection to tenants who make payment or deposit as required by Section 15, despite the default in paying rent for February 1971? 2. Whether the Rent Controller could have refused to pass an order of eviction on the ground that the delay in depositing the rent was only for one day and was not contumacious?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the tenant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 (2) because she had already been given the benefit of making payments as directed by Section 15 (1) and had subsequently defaulted in paying rent for February 1971. The court interpreted the proviso to Section 14 (2) as applying only to subsequent eviction proceedings, and not to the same proceedings in which the benefit of Section 14 (2) had already been given to the tenant. 2. The court held that the Rent Controller could not have refused to pass an order of eviction on the ground that the delay in depositing the rent was only for one day and was not contumacious. The court relied on a Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court, which held that whenever there is a default in not complying with an order to pay rent as directed by Section 15, eviction has to be ordered.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's appeal and upheld the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal. However, the court granted the tenant three months' time to vacate the premises.
( 1 ) THIS is tenant s second appeal against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal by which it passed an eviction order against the appellant from the premises in dispute under clause (a) to Proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (to be called the Act ).
( 2 ) THE respondent, Om Parkash, brought an application for eviction against the appellant from the premises in dispute. The grounds for eviction were non-payment of arrears of rent and also bona-fide requirement by the respondent-landlord owner as well as the substantial damage to the premises. The appellant resisted the application.
( 3 ) THE Additional Rent Controller by his order dated 21st September, 1972 held that the respondent was the landlord owner of the premises and that the same had been let out for the residential purposes and were also required by the landlord for residence of self and the members of the family. He also found that as the appellant had not paid or tendered the arrears of rent for the month of February, 1971, as directed under Section 15 (1), he was not, therefore, entitled to the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act and he consequently directed the eviction of the appellant under clause (a) of proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act.
( 4 ) THE tenant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal who by his order dated July 19, 1973, has affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller that the respondent was the landlord qua the appellant and that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Tribunal disagreeing with the Rent Controller held that the respondent was not entitled to claim eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement under clause (e) to Proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act. He, however, affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller and upheld the order of eviction against the appellant under clause (a) to proviso to Section14 (1) of the Act. Aggrieved against the said order, the tenant has come up in second appeal to this Court.
( 5 ) MR. Menon appearing for the appellant has not challenged the finding of the courts below that the respondent had become the landlord of the appellant and that there was relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties. The only ground urged by Mr. Menon was that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of provision of section 14 (2) of the Act and an order of eviction under clause (1) to Proviso to Section 14 (1) could not have been passed in law. Now clause (a) to Proviso to Section 14 (1) states that the Controller may make an order for recovery of the premises on the ground :
"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. "section 14 (2) further reads as under :
"no order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to subsection (1 ). if the tenant makes payment or deposits as required by section 15: Provided that no tenant shall be entitled to the benefit under this sub-section, if having obtained such benefit once in respect of any premises, he again makes a default in the payment of rent of those premises for three consecutive months. "
( 6 ) EXHIBIT A-2 is the copy of the notice dated 29th April 1970 by which arrears of rent were demanded from the appellant. By this notice the appellant was called upon to pay the arrears of rent with effect from 1st November, 1969 uptodate at the rate Rs. 110. 00 p. m. The courts below found that the arrears were not tendered within two months of the service of the notice of demand, and this finding was not challenged before me. On 25th November, 1970 an order was passed under section 15 (1) by the Additional Rent Controller directing the appellant to deposit the
