The main legal point established in the judgment is that an act of the court should not harm any litigant, emphasizing the principle that the court's actions should not prejudice the parties involved.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral):--

1. The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal dated 17.1.2012. The Additional Rent Control Tribunal by the impugned judgment has decided two appeals. One appeal was filed by the landlords and the other appeal was by the tenant both against the judgment/order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 09.11.2009. The judgment/order dated 09.11.2009 is a consequential order pursuant to the main judgment deciding the petition filed by the petitioners/landlords under Section 14(1)(a) (non-payment of rent) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on 01.8.2008.

2. To put in seriatim and chronologically, it is to be noted that the petitioners herein/landlords filed the eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This petition was allowed in favour of the landlords by holding that the respondent/tenant had committed a default in payment of rent for the period from 01.10.1996 to 03.11.1996 by not paying, tendering or depositing the rent inspite of service of the legal notice Ex. AW-1/10 dated 12.12.1996. In law, even if a default is proved in a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, an eviction order does not follow because a tenant is entitled to make up the default of rent by depositing rent pursuant to an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. If it is found that the tenant has complied with the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act, benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act is given and eviction order is not passed.

3. In the present case, the issue which is argued before this Court is that the respondent/tenant has not complied with the order under Section 15(1) of the Act because interest amount which was liable to be paid in terms of Section 26 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the amount of arrears of rent was not paid by the respondent/tenant as demanded in the legal notice dated 12.12.1996 Ex. AW-1/10, and therefore, benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act cannot be given.

4. At this stage, the interim order dated 2.12.1999 which was passed by the Additional Rent Controller under Section 15(1) of the Act during the hearing of the main petition under Section 14(1)(a) of Act is required to be examined. The relevant/operative part of this order reads as under:-

“3. In reply to para 18(a) (iii) the respondent claims that he has been sending the rent through money order which was refused. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent was in arrears w.e.f. 1st October, 1996. The respondent does not claim to have paid the rent upto any specific month. From the contention of the respondent that he sent the rent through money order which was refused, it is presumed that the rent for period from 1st October, 1996 was sent by the respondent through money order which was allegedly refused by the petitioner. As such the respondent has not paid any rent w.e.f. 1st October, 1996. Therefore, I am of the prima-facie view that the monthly rent in respect of the premises last paid y the respondent was at the rate of Rs. 375/- per month which has not been paid by the respondent w.e.f. 1st October, 1996. Accordingly without prejudice to the respective rights of the parties the respondent is hereby directed to pay to the petitioner or deposit in the court upto date arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st October, 1996 at the rate of Rs. 375/- p.m within a period of 30 days from today and to continue to pay to the petitioner or deposit in the court monthly rent for each month by 15th of each succeeding month till further orders. Case is adjourned for petitioner’s evidence on 24.2.2000.” (emphasis added)

5. It is clear from a reading of the operative portion of this order dated 2.12.1999 that in this order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act, there is no direction, although wrongly, for the respondent/tenant to deposit interest payable on acc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document