Back
High Court Of Delhi
RAJ KRISHAN JAIN - Appellant
Versus
MASTER HOSHIAR SINGH - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 258 of 1969
Decided On : 02/19/1971
RENT CONTROL - NOTICE TO QUIT - WAIVER - ACCEPTANCE OF RENT - SECOND NOTICE TO QUIT - EFFECT - TENANT'S RIGHT TO BENEFIT OF SECTION 14 (2) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14 - APPLICABILITY - IDENTITY OF PREMISES - SECTION 62 OF THE CONTRACT ACT - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord gave a notice to quit to the tenant under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, demanding arrears of rent and threatening to file a suit for eviction if the rent was not paid. The tenant did not pay the arrears and the landlord filed an eviction petition. During the pendency of the petition, the Supreme Court held that the Rent Control Acts were not a self-contained code and had to be read with the Transfer of Property Act, and that no petition for eviction could be filed unless the contractual tenancy was terminated by a notice. The landlord then gave a second notice to quit to the tenant, terminating the tenancy by the end of November, 1967. The tenant resisted the eviction petition on the grounds that the contractual tenancy had not been terminated prior to the filing of the second eviction petition, that the first notice to quit was waived by the landlord by the subsequent acceptance of rent arrears and by giving the second notice to quit, and that he had paid rent for three years in October 1967 counting backwards, i.e., from October-1964 to October 1967 as the rest of the rent arrears were barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the first notice to quit was valid and terminated the contractual tenancy before the second eviction petition was filed. The court also held that the first notice to quit was not waived by the landlord by accepting the arrears of rent or by giving the second notice to quit. The court further held that the tenant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as he had already enjoyed the benefit of this provision in the first eviction proceeding and the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 14 prohibits the tenant from seeking the same benefits in a subsequent eviction proceeding. The court also held that the addition of some more built up area to the premises by the landlord did not change the identity of the premises and, therefore, the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 14 operated squarely against the tenant.
Issues: 1. Whether the first notice to quit was valid and terminated the contractual tenancy before the second eviction petition was filed. 2. Whether the first notice to quit was waived by the landlord by accepting the arrears of rent or by giving the second notice to quit. 3. Whether the tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. 4. Whether the addition of some more built up area to the premises by the landlord changed the identity of the premises.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A notice to quit is valid if it satisfies the requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, namely, it should be for a minimum period of fifteen days and it should unequivocally declare the intention of the landlord to terminate the tenancy. 2. The acceptance of rent by the landlord or the giving of a second notice to quit does not necessarily waive the first notice to quit. The question of waiver is a question of fact and depends on the circumstances of each case. 3. A tenant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, if he has already enjoyed the benefit of this provision in a previous eviction proceeding. 4. The addition of some more built up area to the premises by the landlord does not change the identity of the premises.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the decision of the Rent Control Tribunal was set aside. The decision of the Rent Controller was restored.
( 1 ) THE premises belong- ing to the appellant-landlord were originally let out to the respondent- tenant at Rs 9450 per month The tenant was in arrears of rent and the landlord gave the first notice of demand under proviso (a) to subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 and then filed a petition for eviction of the tenanc on the ground that the arrears were not paid by the tenant within two months after the notice of demand. After the petition was filed, the Rent Controller made an order under Section 15 (1) of the said Act The tenant paid the arrears and, therefore, this first petition filed by the landlord for the eviction of the tenant was dismissed.
( 2 ). Subsequently a portion of the premises was demolished and, therefore, for two months, the tenant paid the rent of Rs. 84-50 per month oniy to the landlord. The reconstruction of the demolished portion enlarged the built up area of the premises and the tenant again started paying rent of Rs. 94-50 per month to the landlord. The tenant was again in arrears and, therefore, the landlord gave the following notice (Exhibit A. W. 5/6) on 9th October, 1964 :-
"under instructions from Shri Krishen Jain son of Lala Rangi Lal Jain of I Daryaganj, Delhi-6, I hereby require you to pay him or to me on his behalf, the sum of Rs. 641. 50 (Rs. Six Hundred and Fortyone Paise fifty) only due from you on account of rent from 1st February, 1964 to 30th September, 1964 at Rs. 94. 50 per month for premises leased to you in House No. X/4242/30 to 32 in 2 Daryagan), Delhi. Please note that if you do not pay this amount within two months from the date of service of this notice, I have instructions to file a suit in court against you for the recovery of the same and your ejectment from the above premises and you will be further liable for my client s costs and also interest at the rate of 12% P- A. until realization. "asno payment was made. the second petition for eviction was filed on 31st December, 1964. During the pendency of this petition, the Supreme Court decision in Manujendra Dutta v. Purnendu Prasad Roy Chowdhury was delivered making it known that the Rent Control Acts were not a self-contained code but had to be read with the Transfer of Property Act and no petition for eviction could be filed unless the contractual tenancy was terminated by a notice. Not knowing whether the notice dated 9th October, 1964wouldberegardedas a camposite notice of demand under Section 14 (i) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as also a reasonable notice according to the principle enshrined in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. the landlord gave another notice to quit to the tenant on 25th October, 1967 (RW-12/1) as follows ;-
"under instructions from my client Shri Raj Krishen Jain, son of Shri Rangi Lal Jain of I Daryaganj, I write to you as under : - That you have been occupying a portion of premises bearing Municipal House Tax No. XI/4242/30 to 32 in 2 Daryagan), Delhi as a tenant under my aforesaid client at Rs. 94. 50 p. m. The tenancy being according to each English Calendar month and rent falls due on the last day of every month. That a petition tor your eviction from the aforesaid permises is pending in the Court of Shri S, R. Goel. Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on the ground of second default in the payment of reel and the premises arc required for reconstruction purposes. that a sum of Rs. 4158. 00 has become due from you on account of arrears of rent from 1st February, 1^64 to 30th September; 1967 which you have not paid in spite of repeated demands. That my client also requires the aforesaid premises on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement and that of the members of his family. That my client does not wish to keep you as his tenant and he terminates your tenancy by the end of November, 1967 tenancy month. Accordingly, I call upon you to vacate the aforessid premises and surrender peaceful vacate possession to my aforesaid client
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
