Back
High Court Of Delhi
MANMOHAN CHAWLA - Appellant
Versus
JASWANT SINGH SETHI - Respondent
Decided On : 01/24/1969
RENT CONTROL - EVICTION - NON-PAYMENT OF RENT - ARREARS OF RENT - DEPOSIT OF RENT - BENEFIT OF DEPOSIT - PROVISO TO SECTION 14 (2) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICABILITY - STANDARD RENT - FIXATION - LIMITATION - SECTION 12 OF THE ACT - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Shri Chawla, was the tenant of the suit premises, of which the respondent, Shri Sethi, was the landlord. The agreed rate of rent was Rs. 160.00 per month. When the rent fell in arrears for the first time, Shri Sethi filed a petition (Exhibit A-20), for the eviction of Shri Chawla under proviso (a) to Section 14 (1) of the Act, claiming that the rent was in arrears from 1-6-1961 to 31-1-1962. In his reply, (Exhibit A-21), Shri Chawla pleaded that the rent was due not from l-6-1961,but from 1-8-1961. The Controller passed an order (Exhibit A-24) under Section 15 (1) of the Act, ordering Shri Chawla to deposit the arrears of rent with effect from 1-7-1961 without prejudice to his contention regarding the payment of rent for July, 1961. The arrears were accordingly deposited by Shri Chawla and it was admitted by both the sides in both the lower Courts that in view of the said deposit, Shri Chawla was not evicted from the suit premises.
Finding of the Court:
The appellant was in default of payment of rent for three months; The appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 (2) and Section 15 (6) read with Sections 15 (1) and 15 (3) as pointed out by the learned lower Court; The appellant was not entitled to the fixation of the standard rent in the present case as the standard rent can be determined only on an application made to the Controller and that too within the limitation as provided by Section 12 of the Act.
Issues: Whether the appellant was in default of payment of rent for three months?; Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 (2) and Section 15 (6) read with Sections 15 (1) and 15 (3)?; Whether the appellant was entitled to the fixation of the standard rent in the present case?
Ratio Decidendi: The proviso to Section 14 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is mandatory and not directory. The Controller has no discretion, therefore, but is bound to refuse the benefit of Section 15 (1) and Section 15 (3) read with Sections 14 (2) and 15 (6) if the proviso to Section 14 (2) applies. The standard rent can be determined only on an application made to the Controller and that too within the limitation as provided by Section 12 of the Act.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) SECOND Appeal from the order of Shri C. G. Suri, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 31-8-66 affirming that of Shri Asa Singh Gill, Rent Controller, Delhi dated 21-10-1965.
( 2 ) THIS is a tenant s appeal against the order of eviction passed against him under proviso (a) to section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter called the Act), for non-payment of arrears of rent. The order was initially passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi and was confirmed in the first appeal by the Rent Control Tribunal. Hence this second appeal.
( 3 ) THE appellant, Shri Chawla, was the tenant of the suit premises, of which the respondent, Shri Sethi, was the landlord. The agreed rate of rent was Rs. 160. 00 per month. When the rent fell in arrears for the first time, Shri Sethi filed a petition (Exhibit A-20), for the eviction of Shri Chawla under proviso (a) to Section 14 (1) of the Act, claiming that the rent was in arrears from 1-6-1961 to 31-1-1962. In his reply, (Exhibit A-21), Shri Chawla pleaded that the rent was due not from l-6-1961,but from 1-8-1961. The Controller passed an order (Exhibit A-24) under Section 15 (1) of the Act, ordering Shri Chawla to deposit the arrears of rent with effect from 1-7-1961 without prejudice to his contention regarding the payment of rent for July, 1961. The arrears were accordingly deposited by Shri Chawla and it was admitted by both the sides in both the lower Courts that in view of the said deposit, Shri Chawla was not evicted from the suit premises.
( 4 ) SHRI Chawla again defaulted in payment of rent for three consecutive months of December, 1962, January and February, 1963. On his failure to pay the same within two months of the notice of demand. Shri Sethi filed the present application for the eviction of Shri Chawla again under proviso (a) to Section 14 (1) of the Act. Shri Chawla resisted the application on the ground that there were no arrears of rent as he had made payments unsupported by receipts. But, these payments were held not to have been proved and this finding of facts was taken to be conclusive by the learned counsel for the appellant before me. Shri Chawla had also pleaded that he had sent a money order of Rs. 320. 00 to the landlord on the 19th March, 1963. Shri Sethi denied that the money order was ever brought to him and both the Courts below held that Shri Chawla had failed to prove the making of a valid tender of Rs. 320. 00 to Shri Sethi by this money order.
( 5 ) IN paragraph 11 of the written statement Shri Chawla stated that the contractual rent was excessive and not according to law. He said that the standard rent of the premises could not be more than Rs. 50. 00 per month and that standard rent of the suit premises be fixed. Both the Courts below, however, held that the question of the fixation of standard rent could not arise, inasmuch as this could be done only under Sub-Section (3) of Section 15 of the Act, if an order for deposit of rent is passed under Sub-Section (1) or Sub-section (3) of Section 15. But, no such order for deposit could be made, inasmuch as Shri Chawla had already once got the benefit of an order under Section 15 in the previous case. The proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 14 of the Act debars Shri Chawla from making deposit under Section 15 and get the application for eviction dismissed second time. Both the Courts, therefore, ordered the eviction of Shri Chawla.
( 6 ) IN the second appeal, the concurrent decision of the Courts below was assailed on the following grounds, viz. :
(1) Shri Chawla was not in default of payment of rent for three months;
(2) Even if he was in such a default, he should have been ordered to deposit the arrears of rent under Section 15 and the learned lower Courts were wrong in thinking that such an order could not be made in view of the proviso to Section 14 (2) of the Act; and
(3) That the Controller was bound to fix the standard rent of the premises as prayed for by Shri Chawla.
(1
AI
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
