Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Satish Parashar - Appellant
Versus
Prem Bihari (since Deceased) - Respondent
C.M. (M) No. 476 of 2020; C.M. No. 24292 of 2020
Decided On : 07-04-2021
Rent Control Tribunal - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 15(1), Section 15(7)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order dismissing their appeal against an eviction petition. The dispute revolved around the rate of rent, with the respondent claiming Rs.850 per month and the petitioner asserting Rs.750 per month. The petitioner sought rectification of an order and filed a review application, which were dismissed, leading to the respondent's application under Section 15(7) of the Act being allowed, resulting in the striking off of the petitioner's defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order dated 14.03.2011 erroneously recorded the admitted rate of rent as Rs.850 per month, contrary to the actual dispute between the parties. It held that the petitioner had diligently pursued legal remedies and had not acted contumaciously. The court set aside the impugned order, directed the expedited hearing of the eviction petition, and instructed the petitioner to clear arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.850 per month and pay costs to the respondent.
Issues: Dispute over the rate of rent, dismissal of review application, allowance of respondent's application under Section 15(7) of the Act, striking off of petitioner's defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the petitioner had diligently pursued legal remedies and had not acted contumaciously, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and the direction for expedited hearing of the eviction petition.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the court directed the expedited hearing of the eviction petition, instructed the petitioner to clear arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.850 per month, and ordered the payment of costs to the respondent.
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal (in short RCT?) in appeal, being RCT No.138/2018, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 17.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller-01, Central (in short ARC?), dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing of an application seeking review of the order dated 14.03.20211 passed by the learned ARC under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act?), and consequently allowing the application of the respondent herein under Section 15(7) of the Act.
2. The respondent had filed an eviction petition, being E.No.821/2014, against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, claiming that the petitioner is a tenant with respect to property, being Middle Flat on the first floor of building no.27, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 at rate of rent of Rs.850/- per month exclusive of electricity and water charges. Paragraph 14 of the Eviction Petition asserts that the date of letting out of the tenanted premises is 16.07.1998 on the basis of written agreement . It is important to note here itself that the Agreement dated 16.07.1998, however, gives the rent as Rs.750/- per month. In the eviction petition, the respondent claimed arrears of rent of Rs.22,950/- for the period with effect from 01.04.2008 to 30.06.2010 at the rate of Rs.850/- per month.
3. The petitioner herein filed his reply to the eviction petition, disputing the rate of rent and claiming the same to be Rs.750/- per month. On the first date of his appearance before the learned ARC, on 27.10.2010, the petitioner also tendered a demand draft of Rs.26,350/- dated 21.10.2010 to the respondent.
4. On 14.03.2011, the learned ARC passed the following order on the application filed by the respondent under Section 15(1) of the Act:
"14.03.2011
Present: Counsel for petitioner.
Counsel for respondent.
Parties in person.
A sum of Rs. 26,350/- has already been paid on behalf of respondent to the petitioner through Bank Draft on 27/10/2010 against receipt.
Argument heard on the application U/s. 15 (1) of the DRC Act.
The rate of rent is Rs.850/- per month which is admitted by the parties and relationship is also not denied. Hence, application U/s. 15 (1) of the DRC Act is disposed of without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Respondent to deposit the legally recoverable rent which is due till the month of March, 2011 within one month from today in the Bank Account number i.e. 0115000100442064, PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi and will continue to deposit the future rent in the aforesaid Bank Account during the pendency of the present petition. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall have any bearing upon the merits of the present case. Hence, put up for PE on 06/07/2011. Advance copy of affidavit be supplied atleast 15 days before the next date of hearing. Parties to file their list of witnesses within 15 days from today."
5. A perusal of the above order would show that Rs.850/- per month was taken as the rent admitted by the parties.
6. It is not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner, however, continued to pay/deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.750/- per month thereafter.
7. Based on the purported default by the petitioner, on 26.09.2012, the respondent filed an application under Section 15(7) of the Act, seeking striking off of the defence of the petitioner herein. The petitioner, on the other hand, filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code?), on 16.11.2012, claiming rectification of the order dated 14.03.2011 to record that the admitted rate of rent was Rs.750/- per month and not Rs.850/- per month as had been recorded in the order dated 14.03.2011.
8. The applications remained pending as in the meantime the respondent expired a
The court emphasized the importance of diligently pursuing legal remedies and the need to avoid acting contumaciously in the context of eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
The court established that a tenant should not lose their right to defense without clear evidence of obstinacy in rent payment, emphasizing judicious discretion in applying penalties under the Act.
The court emphasized that the discretionary power under Order XV Rule 5 of the CPC must be exercised judiciously, particularly in cases of non-payment of rent, reflecting the parties' conduct.
Eviction may be challenged if notice is filed before the tenant's compliance period lapses; timely adherence to rent payment schedules under the DRC Act is critical.
The failure of the tenant to deposit the rent under Section 27 of the Act, after the landlord's refusal to accept the tendered rent, makes the tenant liable for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the....
Arrears of rent under the Delhi Rent Control Act must be computed from the date of legal notice, emphasizing strict compliance with the provisions for eviction.
Tenants must deposit admitted rent during eviction proceedings under crisis; failure leads to automatic eviction unless sufficient cause is shown.
Premature filing of an eviction petition does not cause prejudice to the tenant if the tenant had exercised the option to pay the arrears of rent within the stipulated time. The first default in comp....
Even assuming that for purpose of execution an order under Section 12(3) of Act can be equated with and treated as same, as one under Section 11 of Act, the consequence enjoined by an order under Sec....
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
