Back
1969 Supreme(Del) 68
High Court Of Delhi
M.L.AHUJA - Appellant
Versus
LACHMAN DASS - Respondent
Decided On : 04/10/1969
The interpretation of Sections 15(1), 15(2), 15(3), and 15(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the determination of the rate of rent payable, the maintainability of an application under Section 15(2) after an order under Section 15(1), and the authority responsible for deciding disputes regarding the person entitled to rent under Section 15(4).
Headnote:
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - SECTION 15(1), 15(2), 15(3), 15(4) - INTERPRETATION - ORDER FOR DEPOSIT OF RENT - RATE OF RENT - DISPUTE AS TO RENT - INTERIM RENT - STANDARD RENT - WITHDRAWAL OF DEPOSITED AMOUNT - DISPUTE AS TO PERSON ENTITLED TO RENT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tenant, was ordered to deposit arrears of rent and future rent at a rate of Rs. 57 per month under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Later, the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 245 per month. The landlord applied for an order to deposit the difference in rent and for payment of the amount deposited by the tenant. The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal allowed the applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order under Section 15(1) was final and could not be challenged. The court interpreted Section 15(1) and 15(2) and held that the rent payable under these provisions was the contractual or actual rent last paid and not the standard rent. The court also held that the application under Section 15(2) could not be maintained after an order had already been made under Section 15(1). The court further held that the dispute as to the person entitled to rent under Section 15(4) had to be decided by the Controller himself and not by any other Court or authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the order under Section 15(1) was final and could be challenged. 2. Whether the rent payable under Section 15(1) and 15(2) was the contractual or actual rent last paid or the standard rent. 3. Whether an application under Section 15(2) could be maintained after an order had already been made under Section 15(1). 4. Whether the dispute as to the person entitled to rent under Section 15(4) had to be decided by the Controller himself or by any other Court or authority.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order under Section 15(1) was final and could not be challenged as it was a mandatory provision imposing a duty on the Court to make the order for deposit of arrears of rent and future rents. 2. The rent payable under Section 15(1) and 15(2) was the contractual or actual rent last paid and not the standard rent, as the provisions of these sections did not refer to standard rent. 3. An application under Section 15(2) could not be maintained after an order had already been made under Section 15(1), as the provisions of Section 15(2) were applicable only to proceedings where one of the grounds for recovery of possession was not non-payment of rent. 4. The dispute as to the person entitled to rent under Section 15(4) had to be decided by the Controller himself and not by any other Court or authority, as the provision clearly stated that the landlord would not be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited until the Controller himself decided the dispute.
Final Decision: The court allowed both appeals and set aside the orders of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal.
( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of S. A. O. No 5-D and S. A. O. No. 6-D of 1966. I am dealing with these two appeals by a common judgment because some of the facts which have resulted in these two appeals are common
( 2 ) MR. P. C. Saini, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, had passed an order dated December 8, 1964 dealing with two applications which had been filed before him by the respondent landlord. One application was for an order against the appellant-tenant to deposit in Court arrears of rent in accordance with the standard rent fixed and other application was for an order for payment of the amount deposited by the appellan tenant in pursuance of an order made under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Both these applications were allowed.
( 3 ) AS there were two separate and independent applications which had been decided by the aforesaid order, the appellant filed two appeals before the Rent Control Tribunal. These two appeals were dismissed by two orders dated December, 10, 1965 and it is against the dismissal of these appeals that the present two appeals have been filed.
( 4 ) THE appellant occupied flat No. 52, Khan Market, New Delhi. under the Managing Officer in the Rehabilitation Department of the Government of India. He was paying a rent of Rs. 57. 00 per month. This property was purchased by the respondent and after the purchase, the respondent on November 8, 1968 filed a petition in the Court of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, for eviction of the appellant on three grounds, namely, (1) non-payment of rent; (2) bonafide personal requirement and (3) as the appellant had built and acquired vacant possession of a suitable residence else where. In paragraph II of his petition, the respondent stated that the monthly rent fixed by the aforesaid Managing Officer was Rs. 57. 00 per month but the standard rent would not in any way be less than Rs. 250. 00 per month. It was after the filing of this petition that a sale certificate was issued to the respondent on December, 18, 1960. In the written statement filed by the appellant it was contended, inter aha, that the respondent was not the owner of the property and that a civil suitregarding his title thereto was pending in the Civil Court; that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to payment of any rent. As to the quantum of rent, the rate of rent alleged by the respondent was denied and it was further pleaded that the standard rent of the premises would be Rs. 30. 00 per month. It will, therefore, be seen that in so far as the pleadings of the parties were concerned, the rate of rent was not admitted by the appellant.
( 5 ) HOWEVER, the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, passed an order on March 16, 1961 which could be passed only under section 15 (1) of the Act. In this order, the Additional Rent Controller has stated that the appellant "has not challenged the rate of rent nor the period of payment". Accordingly, the Additional Rent Controller ordered the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent with effect from November 5, 1957 at the rate of Rs. 57. 00 per month within one month from the date of the order and the future monthly rent, month by month, by the 15th of every following month at the aforesaid rate. The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, further added that his order will be "without prejudice to the dispute between -the parties regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant. The amount will not be paid to the petitioner until this dispute is decided. " This order became final between the parties as the appeal and the second appeal which had been filed by the appellant were dismissed.
( 6 ) THE civil suit which had been filed by the appellant challenging the title of the respondent was dismissed by the trial Court on March 31, 1962 but the appeal against such dismissal is pending.
( 7 ) IN the mean time on February, 6, 19
