Back
High Court Of Delhi
PRUTHI BROTHERS - Appellant
Versus
MANGAL WATI - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 177 of 1968
Decided On : 04/28/1971
RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 7, 13, 14(1)(A), 14(2), 15(1), 26, 27 - HOUSE TAX - ADJUSTMENT - REPAIR CHARGES - DEFAULT - EVICTION - NOTICE OF DEMAND - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, tenants since June 20, 1950, failed to pay rent from April 1962. The landlady filed an eviction application, and the appellants were ordered to deposit arrears of rent at Rs. 325 per month without prejudice to their pleas. The appellants deposited the arrears but failed to appear at a hearing, leading to the dismissal of the eviction application. The appellants again defaulted on rent, and the landlady filed a second eviction application. The Controller dismissed the application, holding that the appellants were not liable to pay house tax and were entitled to adjust repair charges. The Tribunal reversed the Controller's decision, holding that the appellants were liable for rent arrears and had committed a second default, warranting eviction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appellants were not entitled to adjust house tax paid by them against the rent, as they should have applied for a refund within one year of payment under Section 13 of the Act. The Court also held that the appellants were entitled to adjust one month's rent for repairs, but this adjustment could only be made for the year 1963, and there were still arrears of rent for November, December 1963, and January 1964. The Court further held that the notice of demand served on the appellants was valid, despite including a demand for fire and scavenging tax, which the landlady was not entitled to recover. The Court concluded that the appellants had committed a second default in payment of rent and were liable to eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants were entitled to adjust house tax paid by them against the rent? 2. Whether the appellants were entitled to adjust repair charges against the rent? 3. Whether the notice of demand served on the appellants was valid? 4. Whether the appellants had committed a second default in payment of rent, warranting eviction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellants were not entitled to adjust house tax paid by them against the rent, as they should have applied for a refund within one year of payment under Section 13 of the Act. The Court noted that the proviso to Section 7(2) of the Act, which allowed tenants to adjust house tax paid by them, was not applicable in this case as the tenancy commenced after January 1, 1952. 2. The Court held that the appellants were entitled to adjust one month's rent for repairs, but this adjustment could only be made for the year 1963, and there were still arrears of rent for November, December 1963, and January 1964. The Court noted that the appellants had not claimed any adjustment for repairs in the previous eviction proceedings and that they had not made an application under Section 13 of the Act for a refund of the house tax paid. 3. The Court held that the notice of demand served on the appellants was valid, despite including a demand for fire and scavenging tax, which the landlady was not entitled to recover. The Court noted that the notice was not invalidated by the inclusion of an incorrect demand, as it was clear to the appellants what rent was being demanded. 4. The Court held that the appellants had committed a second default in payment of rent, warranting eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The Court noted that the appellants had failed to pay rent for more than three consecutive months, and that they had already enjoyed the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act once.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appellants' appeal, upholding the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal.
( 1 ) THE appellants are the tenants, since June 20, 1950, in the first floor of a house situated on Original Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, belonging to the respondent, landlady. The agreed rent was Rs. 325. 00 per mensem which they started paying to the landlady from the very beginning. They however, failed to pay the rent from April, 1962. On September 11, 1962 the respondent landlady filed her first application for the appellant s eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent in spite of notice of demand. The appellants in their written statement pleaded that the rent paid by them included house tax which the respondent could not recover under the law and was liable to refund to them. An order under section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter called "the Act", was however passed by the Additional Controller directing the appellant tenants to deposit the arrears of rent with effect from April 1, 1962 onwards at the rate of Rs. 325. 00 per month without prejudice to their pleas. The appellant tenants appeal against the said order was dismissed. The arrears of rent were then deposited by the appellants in compliance with the aforesaid order. There was however, no progress in the case for one reason or the other, till it was fixed for evidence on September 13, 1963. The appellants failed to put in appearance on that day although the respondent land-lady was duly represented by her counsel. The latter made a statement that the rent deposited, having been withdrawn by the respondent the eviction Application had become infructuous. The Additional Controller made order on that very date that the tenants having failed to put in appearance their pleas. could not be gone into. The rent having been deposited in compliance with the orders of the Tribunal the eviction application was dismissed.
( 2 ) THE appellants again failed to pay any rent and the rent for October, November and December, 1963 and January, 1964 fell into arrears. The landlady served a notice of demand Exhibit A. W. 1/6 dated February 12, 1964 on the appellants demanding rent at the rate of Rs. 325. 00 per month for the said four months and "fire and scavanging tax" from 1960 to 1963 amounting to Rs. 158. 10 paise. On April 27, 1964 the appellants sent a reply Exhibit A. W. 1/13 complaining that the repair charges at the rate of one month s rent in a year had not been paid by the respondent-landlady to them for 1961, 1962 and 1963. They asked her to adjust the same against the rent claimed. The liability to pay fire and scavanging tax was denied. The respondent was asked to confirm, if the arrears of rent after making the said adjustment be sent. No payment, however, was made.
( 3 ) ON May 5, 1964 the respondent-landlady filed her second eviction application against the appellants on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was stated that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of section 14 (2) of the Act as having obtained such benefit once they had committed this second default in the payment of rent. They were, therefore, said to be liable to be evicted. In the written statement the appellants denied having committed default. They disputed their liability to pay house tax or any other tax and asserted that they were entitled to adjust one month s rent in a year for repairs to the premises.
( 4 ) THE Controller held that the rent in the rent note Exhibit A. W. 1/15 was stipulated to be inclusive of house tax. The correct rate of rent was therefore Rs. 292. 50 per mensem and the remaining Rs. 35. 50 paise per month was the house tax. For 18 months, from April 1, 1962 to September 30, 1963, the appellants had paid Rs. 585. 00 in excess to the respondent, at the rate of Rs. 32. 50 paise per month as house tax, subject to their plea that they were not liable to pay this amount. The tenant appellants were held not liable to pay this excess amount by virtue of the provisions of section 7 of the Act, a refund of which they could claim
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
