Back
1972 Supreme(Del) 219
High Court Of Delhi
RAM SARUP - Appellant
Versus
RAJ DULARI - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal 185 of 1968
Decided On : 09/25/1972
B.T.Singh, N.D.BALI, R.S.VERMA
The interim rent fixed by the Additional Controller was in the nature of an interlocutory order, passed during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, which were then pending before the Additional Controller. It limited the liability of the appellant tenants to pay rent at the interim rent rate during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, subject to such adjustments as may be required on the final outcome of those proceedings at their termination. The said interlocutory order expired on February 6, 1965, when the eviction petition was dismissed in default. There was no question of the appellant's liability being limited any more to the payment of interim rent.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - STANDARD RENT - INTERIM RENT - ARREARS - LIMITATION - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Sections 5, 9, 10, 12, 15(2), 15(3), 48.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, tenants, filed an application for fixation of standard rent under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act). The Additional Controller fixed interim rent at Rs. 125 per month and directed arrears to be paid at that rate. The eviction petition was dismissed in default. The landlady filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3200 towards the balance of arrears of rent.
Finding of the Court:
The interim rent fixed by the Additional Controller was in the nature of an interlocutory order, passed during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, which were then pending before the Additional Controller. It limited the liability of the appellant tenants to pay rent at the interim rent rate during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, subject to such adjustments as may be required on the final outcome of those proceedings at their termination. The said interlocutory order expired on February 6, 1965, when the eviction petition was dismissed in default. There was no question of the appellant's liability being limited any more to the payment of interim rent.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants are liable to pay the contractual rent at the rate of Rs. 175 per month? 2. Whether the landlady can recover arrears of rent for the period prior to three years from the date of the filing of the suit for its recovery?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order fixing the interim rent, however, was in the nature of an interlocutory order, passed during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, which were then pending before the Additional Controller. It limited the liability of the appellant tenants to pay rent at the interim rent rate during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, subject to such adjustments as may be required on the final outcome of those proceedings at their termination. The said interlocutory order expired on February 6, 1965, when the eviction petition was dismissed in default. There was no question of the appellant's liability being limited any more to the payment of interim rent. 2. The only construction that can be placed on section 15 (3) is that the interim rent is no less in effect than the standard rent, the only difference being that it is fixed on a provisional basis and subject to subsequent adjustments if necessary. But the landlord cannot claim or receive rent in excess of the said interim rent during the period it remains in force and effective. On the termination of the proceedings in which the interim rent was fixed, the landlord can claim the entire arrears at the rate of standard rent, if it is fixed and at the contractual rate, if it cannot be fixed.
Final Decision: The appeal of the appellants is dismissed, while the cross-objections of the respondent landlady are allowed. The judgments and decrees of the courts below are, accordingly, modified and the suit of the respondent-landlady is decreed for Rs. 3,200.00 against the appellants.
( 1 ) IN their written statement dated November 2, 1965, filed in reply to an eviction petition of Raj Dulari, respondent landlady, the appellant tenants made a prayer for fixation of standard rent under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hein called the Act , for the premises in dispute, which had been taken on rent in 1958. An application under section 15 (2) of the Act was filed by the landlady for directions to the appellants for deposit of arrears of rent due from February 1, 1962 at the rate of Rs. 175. 00 per month. On March 15, 1963, the Additional Controller fixed Rs. 125. 00 per month as the interim rent, under section 15 (3) of the Act and directed the arrears and future rent to be paid at that rate. The eviction petition, however, was dismissed in default on February 6, 1965. In the meantime, the appellant tenants had deposited with the Additional Controller from time to time a sum of Rs. 4500. 00 in all. The appellants filed an application before the Additional Controller on June 4, 1966 for determination of their plea for fixation of standard rent, but the same was dismissed. The appeal against the said order was also dismissed and a second appeal to the High Court, SAO 265 of 1968, has also been dismissed by me today, by a separate order.
( 2 ) IN the meantime, the respondent-landlady filed a suit on October 16, 1965 against the appellants for recovery of Rs. 3200. 00 towards the balance of arrears of rent out of which this second appeal has arisen. A sum of Rs. 7700. 00 was claimed as arrears from February 1, 1962 up to September 30, 1965 at Rs. 175. 00 per month. Against this, a sum of Rs. 4500. 00 was adjusted as amount received in account from the Additional Controller, out of which Rs. 4. 375. 00 were said to be towards rent due from February 1, 1962 to February 29, 1964 at Rs. 175. 00 per month and the remaining Rs. 125. 00 were said to be part payment of rent for the month of March, 1964. The balance of Rs. 3200. 00 was, thus, claimed to be due from the appellants to the respondent-landlady. The appellants resisted the suit and claimed, inter alia, that the respondent landlady was not entitled to claim anything unless their plea of fixation of standard rent was decided. The learned Sub-Judge, however, came to the conclusion that the appellants were liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 175. 00 per month, that the rent from February 1, 1962 onwards had been paid at the rate of Rs. 125. 00 per month, that the balance of the arrears at the rate of Rs. 50. 00 per month for the period from February 1, 1962 to September 30, 1962 amounting in all to Rs. 400/had become barred by time and that for the remaining period, the plaintiff could claim at the rate of Rs. 175. 00 per month and adjust against it, the proportionate amount deposited for that period. The balance, thus, left worked out to Rs. 2,800. 00 which sum was decreed against the appellants. Both the respondent landlady and the appellants filed cross-appeals against the said judgment, which however, were dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The appellant tenants in their second appeal to this Court have again claimed that standard rent not having been fixed, decree for arrears of rent could not be passed and in any case decree could not be passed for rent at a rate more than the said Rs. 125. 00 per month, which had been fixed as the interim rent.
( 3 ) THE respondent-landlady also filed cross-objections claiming that the order of the learned Additional District Judge disallowing Rs. 400. 00 towards arrears of rent on the ground that it was barred by time was erroneous and praying that the said amount Rs. 400. 00 should be decreed in her favour.
( 4 ) THE interim rent at the rate of Rs. 125. 00 per month, as already stated, was fixed by the Additional Controller on March 15, 1963, in accordance with the then prevailing view of the law, and practice followed by the Controller, [according to which, the tenant s prayer for fixation of
