Back
1970 Supreme(Del) 4
High Court Of Delhi
MEHTA RADHA KISHEN - Appellant
Versus
RAJ RANI - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 131D of 1963
Decided On : 01/08/1970
G.R.BHATIA, R.C.DUTTA
The agreement between the landlord and the tenant to pay a rent lesser than the standard rent is valid and binding on the parties, and the Rent Controller is justified in fixing the interim rent at the agreed rate.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - STANDARD RENT - AGREEMENT BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT - VALIDITY - INTERIM RENT - FIXATION - DISPUTE AS TO AMOUNT OF RENT PAYABLE - MEANING.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tenant, entered into an agreement with the respondent, his landlord, to pay a rent of Rs. 16/12. 00 per month, after the standard rent was fixed by the civil court at Rs. 25. 00 per month. The landlord filed an application for fixation of standard rent under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the Rent Controller dismissed the application. Subsequently, the landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 25. 00 per month. The tenant challenged the order before the Rent Control Tribunal, which upheld the order of the Rent Controller.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the agreement between the landlord and the tenant to pay a rent of Rs. 16/12. 00 per month was valid and binding on the parties. The court further held that the Rent Controller was justified in fixing the interim rent at Rs. 16/12. 00 per month, and the fixation of Rs. 25. 00 per month as interim rent by the Rent Control Tribunal was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement between the landlord and the tenant to pay a rent of Rs. 16/12. 00 per month was valid and binding on the parties? 2. Whether the Rent Controller was justified in fixing the interim rent at Rs. 16/12. 00 per month?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the agreement between the landlord and the tenant to pay a rent of Rs. 16/12. 00 per month was valid and binding on the parties because: * The Act prohibits the landlord to claim or receive any rent in excess of the standard rent, but it does not prohibit or prevent the landlord from voluntarily accepting a rent lesser than the standard rent. * The agreement was entered into after the standard rent was fixed by the civil court, and it was not the case of the respondent that the said agreement was vitiated by any fraud or undue influence. 2. The court held that the Rent Controller was justified in fixing the interim rent at Rs. 16/12. 00 per month because: * The dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, as mentioned in section 15 (3) of the Act, means the dispute about the contractual rent payable and not the standard rent payable. * The amount of rent legally recoverable from the tenant was the amount agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, which was Rs. 16/12. 00 per month.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Second Appeal and modified the order of the Rent Control Tribunal. The appellant-tenant was directed to deposit Rs. 1,309. 25 Paise as arrears of rent for the period from 1st March, 1963, to 31st December, 1969, at the rate of Rs. 16/12. 00 per month, within two months from the date of the order. The tenant was also directed to continue to deposit future rent at the same rate month by month by the 15th of each following month.
( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal has been filed against the order of Shri Pritam Singh Pattar. Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dated 20th March, 1963 in Rent Control Appeal No. 68 of 1963 on his file.
( 2 ) THE appellant in this Second Appeal is Mehta, Radha Krishna, According, to him, he became a tenant of the Custodian, in 1948 in respect of a portion of the suit primises, and the rent payable by him to the Custodian was Rs. 6. 50 np. The respondent herein. Shrimati Raj Rani, wife of Shri Mehta Puran Chand, Advocate, purchased the entire building in 1957, and the appellant therein became her tenant. Immediately after the purchase, the respondent herein filed an application on 1st September, 1957, in the Court of Shri B. R. Guiliani, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act No. 38 of 1952, for fixation of standard rent against all the tenants in the building including the appellant herein. It appears that the application was dismissed against all the tenants in 1960, and the respondent preferred an appeal to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi. The case was remanded to the Civil Judge in April, 1961, by the Additional District Judge. After the remand Shri Guliani, by an order, dated 21-8-1961, fixed the standard rent for the portion in the occupation of the appellant herein at Rs. 25. 00 per month- Subsequent to the filing of the application before Shri Guliani, the Delhi Rent Control Act No. 59 of 1958, was passed, and it came into force on 9th February, 1959. It appears that in view of the passing of the new Act, the respondent herein filed another application for fixation of standard rent against the appellant herein in the Court of Shri B. L. Mago, Rent Controller, Delhi. on 3rd February, 1961, under the provisions of the Act of 1958. It was while the said application was pending that appeal which arose out of the application filed in 1957 was allowed and the case was remanded. Thus, after 3rd February, 1961, two separate applications for fixation of standard rent between the same parties were pending, one before Shri Guliani, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, under the 1952 Act and the other before Shri B. L. Mago, Rent Controller, Delhi, under the Act of 1958.
( 3 ) ON 9th October, 1961, the counsel for the parties before Shri B. L. Mago made statements in the Court. The said statements and the proceedings on that date were recorded in Urdu and a translation of the same has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant herein. According to the said translation, Shri Lakshmi Chand Nanda, counsel for the appellant herein who was the respondent before Shri B. L. Mago, made the following statement:-
"it is evident from the order of the Court mentioned by the petitioner that the standard rent of the house in dispute has been fixed by order, dated 21-8-1961. It has come to our knowledge only today. As such, no fresh standard rent can be fixed. According to law, if that is the standard rent, it shall be the same. "
( 4 ) SHRI Puran Chand, the counsel for the respondent herein, who was the petitioner before Shri B. L. Mago made the following statement:-
"rs. 25. 00 has been fixed as the standard rent vide order dated 21-8-61. "
AFTER recording the above statements, Shri B. L. Mago, made a note as follows :-
"at this stage, the parties have compromised. Let their statements be recorded. "
( 5 ) THEN, the statement of Shri Lakshmi Chand Nanda, counsel for the tenant i. e. the appellant herein who was the respondent before Shri B. L. Mago was recorded as follows :-
"the respondent will pay Rs. 16/12. 00 p. m. as rent from 1-2-1960. The petition be dismissed. The petitioner be given a voucher for the amount deposited. The parties be left to bear their own costs, Rs. 16/12. 00 is the correct standard rent. "
( 6 ) LANDLADY i. e. the respondent herein who was the petitioner before Shri B. L. Mago, was then recorded as follows :-
"i have heard the statement of the counsel for the resp
