SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(Del) 285

High Court Of Delhi
DHAN RAJ JAYNA - Appellant
Versus
S.P.SINGH - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 112 of 1972
Decided On : 12/12/1972

Advocates Appeared:
G.S.Vohra, M.S.Vohra, P.K.JAIN, R.K.MAKHIJA, V.P.Chaudhary

The standard rent of the premises is determined by the Controller and not by the landlord or the tenant unilaterally.

Headnote:

RENT CONTROL ACT - Standard Rent - Fixation - Enhanced Rent - Payment of Rent - Deposit - Adjustment - Mistake of Law - Order under Section 15 (1) - Compliance - Benefit of Section 14 (2).

Fact of the Case:

The tenant deposited rent in excess of the standard rent fixed by the Controller to cover the risk of the landlord's claim being found sustainable by law. The Controller ordered the tenant to pay rent at the enhanced rate, but the Rent Control Tribunal modified the order and held that the tenant was liable to pay rent only at the standard rate. The landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent.

Finding of the Court:

The tenant had complied with the requirements of Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 (2) to have the petition for eviction dismissed.

Issues: 1. Whether the tenant was liable to pay the enhanced standard rent under Section 6 (1) (B) (2) (a) (ii) of the Act? 2. Whether the deposits of rent by the tenant in April, 1964 satisfied the landlord's claim of arrears at the rate of Rs. 825. 42? 3. Whether the tenant had complied with the order under Section 15 (1) passed by Shri Gill and modified by Shri Suri?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The standard rent of the premises is determined by the Controller and not by the landlord or the tenant unilaterally. 2. The payment made by the tenant in April 1964 was not made as if the tenant was paying the agreed rate of rent to the landlord. It was made to cover the risk if ultimately the liability were to be at the rate of Rs. 825. 42. 3. The order of Shri Suri, Rent Control Tribunal, which modified and suspended the operation of the order of Shri Gill, Controller, became the only operative order under Section 15 (1) of the Act. The tenant was entitled to a fresh period of one month to deposit the arrears of rent from the date of the final order of Shri Suri.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

V. S. DESHPANDE

( 1 ) THE main question for decision in this second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) is whether the respondent tenant complied with the order of the Controller passed under Section 15 of the Act to obtain the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act. But in answering this question, various other provisions of the Act. e. g. . Sections 2 (k), 4 to 9, 12 and 13, and Sections 59 to 60 and 72 of the Contract Act have also to be considered.

( 2 ) THE premises of the appellant landlord were let to the respondent tenant from 1-7-1944. In a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent filed by the landlord under the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act. 1952 the standard rent of the premises was fixed by Shri J. L. Tandon, Subordinate Judge at Rs. 717-75 including house-tax. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the High Court on 19-3-1964. During the pendency of the appeal, the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 came into force from 9th February. 1959. According to the definition of standard rent S. 6 (1) (B) (2) (a) (ii) of the Act. the standard rent of the premises meant the standard rent fixed under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 together with 15 per cent of such rent The landlord gave a notice to the tenant informing him that the rent from 1st May, 1959 would be Rs. 825-42. The tenant asked the landlord for clarification whether he was renewing the tenancy at the enhanced rent and was giving up the claim for eviction. The landlord did not give up the claim for eviction and the tenant did not admit the claim of the landlord for the enhanced standard rent. The judgment of the High Court directed the tenant to pay arrears of rent within one month. In default of such payment, the tenant was liable to be evicted.

( 3 ) THE question which faced the tenant was at which rate was he to pay the rent arrears. On the one hand. the standard rent fixed by Shri Tandon and confirmed by the High Court was Rupees 717. 75. On the other hand the standard rent demanded by the landlord from 1st May, 1959 under Section 6 (1) (B) (2) (a) (ii) of the Act was Rs. 825. 42. While the tenant wanted to pay the arrears of rent only at the lower rate of rent, namely, Rs. 717. 75. he did not want to take the risk of being evicted if he was in law liable to pay the enhanced standard rent of Rs 825. 42 under Section 6 (1) (B) (2) (a) (ii) of the Act. He, therefore, deposited the arrears of rent as follows:

(1) Rent for March 1964 at Rupees 717. 75 on 2-4-1964; (2) Two separate deposits of Rupees 20,000. 00 and Rs. 6,000. 00"on 14-4-1964 "on account of arrears of rent upto-date according to the decree and judgment of High Court. . . . . . . . . but the above amount is being deposited in excess so that actual amount due may be calculated and given to the decree-holder. This amount is being tendered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . on account. "on these deposits, the suit for eviction of the landlord against the tenant stood dismissed under Section 13 (2) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952.

( 4 ) THE present petition for eviction was filed by the landlord against the tenant on 8-6-1966 again on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The landlord attached to it an account of the arrears of rent due from the tenant and the payments of rent made by the tenant from 1-12-1952 onwards calculating the rent at Rs. 717. 75 till 30th April, 1959 and at the rate of Rs. 825. 42 from 1st May, 1959 onwards. By this calculation the landlord showed that the tenant had paid Rs. 602-16 in excess of the rent due from him till 31-3-1964 by the deposits made by him in April, 1964. The landlord purported to adjust the excess towards the rent due for the subsequent period. After calculating his liability to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 717. 75, the tenant replied that he had deposited much more excess amount upto 16-4-1964 in rent account.

( 5 )






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top