Future defaults by the Tenant can be considered for refusing benefit under Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) - The present petitions challenge the impugned orders dated 22 nd July, 2016 passed by the ld. Rent Controller and the order dated 20 th April, 2017 passed by the ld. Rent Control Tribunal by which the eviction petition filed by the Respondent/Landlord ( hereinafter, ''Landlord '') has been allowed. The background is that an eviction petition was filed by the Landlord Smt. Meena Sharma against the Petitioners/Tenants ( hereinafter, ''Tenants'' ) under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Initially, vide order dated 5 th September, 2006, the Tenants were held to be in breach and a decree was passed under Section 14 (1)(a). However, benefit was given under Section 14(2). Since there were defaults by the tenant, the matter reached this Court in CM(M) 796/2014 and CM(M) 797/2014. The question that came to be considered in the said petition was whether future defaults by the Tenant could be considered for the purpose of refusing benefit under Section 14(2). The petitions were decided by this Court vide the said order dated 3 rd March, 2015 and the matter was remanded back to the ld. ARC in the following terms:

''7. The short issue in the present petitions is that in the absence of an order under Section 15(1) DRC Act directing payment of future rent, whether the Court was not required to consider future defaults in view of provision under Section 26 of the DRC Act.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order dated 5 th June, 2006 condoning the delay without any application seeking condonation of delay was an illegal order and further illegality was committed by the impugned orders of the learned ARC dated 7 th September, 2013 and Rent Controller dated 24 th July,2014 when they did not consider the subsequent defaults made. Even if there was no direction by the Court to pay future rents the provision of Section 26 DRC Act was applicable and any delay in deposition of the money beyond 15 th day of the proceeding month would have given rise to a cause of action in favour of the petitioners amounting to subsequent defaults. Reliance is placed on Shanti Prasad Jain (D) Through Lrs. Vs. Prakash Narain Mathur 158 (2009) DLT 483(SC); Sanjay Kumar Saxena Vs. Smt. Meeta Govel 114 (2004) DLT 710; Ram Prakash Tewari Vs. Suraj Bhan Yadav 90(2001) DLT 236 and Shri Manohar Lal (deceased) through LRs Vs. Prem Nath Gera (deceased) through LRs. CM(M) 638/2011, decided by this Court on 24 th May, 2011. ....

12. Thus even if the learned ARC vide the order dated 5 th September, 2006 failed to pass directions for payment of future-rent, the tenant was statutorily bound to pay the future rent in terms of Section 26 of the Act. However, both the learned ARC and the Rent Controller committed illegality in not considering Section 26 of the DRC Act and dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(a), 14(2) and 15(7), 25 and 26 of the DRC Act read with Section 151 CPC on the ground that there was no order for payment of future rent under Section 15(1) DRC Act. Thus, there is an illegality committed by both the Courts below. Hence the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Additional Rent Controller for consideration of the petitioner''s applications under Sections 14(2), 15(7), 25 and 26 of the DRC Act and whether the respondent was entitled to the benefit under Section 14(2) of the DRC Act in view of subsequent defaults.''

2. The ld. Single Judge of this Court had, as per the above order, set aside the impugned orders and had remanded the matter back to the ld. ARC. The first impugned order which is under challenge i.e. order dated 22 nd July, 2016 was an order passed on remand. The ld. ARC, has, after analysing the various payments made by the Tenant and the question as to whether the tenant is entitled to benefit under Section 14(2), arrived at a conclusion that the Tenant was a defaulter and had committed violation of the order dated 5 th Septe