The exercise of discretion under Section 15(7) of the Act is discretionary and depends on contumacious or deliberate default, as held by the Supreme Court.

Headnote:
Rent Control Act - Benefit of Section 14(2) - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(2), Section 15(1) - The court discussed the application of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and the interpretation of the orders passed under Section 15(1) of the Act. The court also referred to the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 and its impact on the eviction petition. The key legal provisions discussed were Section 14(2) of the DRC Act and the discretionary power under Section 15(7) of the Act. The court's decision was influenced by the exercise of discretion by the Additional Rent Controller and the interpretation of contumacious conduct in withholding payment.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the order granting benefit of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 to the respondents. The petitioner argued that there was a default in compliance with the order under Section 15(1) of the Act and that the rent was not deposited by the tenant. The respondents opposed these submissions.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no default in compliance with the order under Section 15(1) of the Act and that the rent deposited by a third party inured to the benefit of the respondents. The court also held that any default in depositing rent did not appear to be contumacious, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Dina Nath (D) by L.Rs. and Ors. versus Subhash Chand Saini and Ors. The court concluded that the discretion had been exercised in favor of the respondents and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the orders under Section 15(1) of the Act, the impact of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 on the eviction petition, and the default in depositing rent by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that there was no default in compliance with the order under Section 15(1) of the Act, the rent deposited by a third party inured to the benefit of the respondents, and any default in depositing rent did not appear to be contumacious.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. - CM 5837/2021(Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM(M) 133/2021 & CM 5836/2021

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the judgment dated 20.10.2020 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal in Appeal, being RCT No.17/2019, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.07.2018 that was passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller in Eviction Petition No. E196/14/09, granting benefit of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to the respondents herein.

2. In the eviction petition filed by the petitioner, an order dated 07.12.2011 under Section 15(1) of the Act came to be passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, directing as under:

"Without prejudice to the contention of the respondent, the respondents are directed to pay rent at admitted rate from three years immediately preceding the filing of present petition till date within one month from today. The respondent shall pay future rent at the same rate by the 15th of each succeeding month."

3. The eviction petition was finally decided in favour of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act by the judgment dated 17.03.2018 and the petition was set down for an enquiry under Section 14(2) of the Act.

4. By the subsequent order dated 12.07.2018, the learned Additional Rent Controller extended the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act to the respondents herein observing as under:

"Admittedly, vide order dt. 07.12.2012 u/s 15(1) of DRC Act, the respondents were directed to pay rent @ Rs.42.35 ps. for the period of three years immediately preceding the filing of the present petition and to continue to pay the same in future as well. The said amount was to be paid within one month from the date of the order. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.3049.20 ps. was deposited by the respondents on 21.12.2011 i.e. within one month from the date of the order. The respondent had further deposited Rs.551/- on 06.01.2012 i.e. also within one month of the passing of the order u/s 15(1) of the DRC Act. Thus within one month, the respondents had deposited an amount of Rs.3600/- which is equivalent to the rent for 85 months @ Rs.42.35 ps.

The present petition was filed in November, 2009 and thus the respondents were to deposit the rent w.e.f. December 2006. Thus within one month, the respondents had deposited the rent for the period w.e.f. December, 2006 till December, 2013. The respondents have also furnished the details of the rent deposited by them which has not been disputed by the petitioner. The respondents have regularly deposited the rent till April, 2018 barring a few months in between. This court finds force in the argument raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondents that there is no bar in depositing the future rent. Clearly the respondents have deposited the rent in advance and at no point of time they were in default or there were any arrears in payment of rent, after passing of the order u/s 15(1) of the DRC Act.

In the circumstances, respondents are entitled for benefit under section 14(2) DRC Act, as it is the first default on the part of respondents regarding payment of rent to the petitioner. Benefit under Section 14(2) of DRC Act is hereby extended to the respondents."

5. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said order, challenged the same in appeal, which has come to be dismissed by the order impugned in the present petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside inasmuch as it fails to consider the effect of the Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Slum Act"). He submits that as the eviction petition could not have been filed without seeking the permission of the Competent Authority under the said Act, the order dated 07.12.2011, where it directed the respondents to make the payment of rent from

Click Here to Read the rest of this document