Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Vijay Kumar Suri - Appellant
Versus
Surinder Pal Singh - Respondent
CM(M) 1417 of 2019 and CM APPL. 42890 of 2019, 42891 of 2019
Decided On : 22-10-2019
A tenant must pay admitted rent during ongoing litigation, regardless of the suit's maintainability under the Delhi Rent Control Act, to avoid prejudice to the landlord.
Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 50 - Tenant's obligation to pay admitted rent - The trial court directed the tenant to pay the admitted rent of Rs.2,200/- per month from 01.04.2013, which was challenged by tenant arguing suit's maintainability. The appellate court stayed the order subject to 50% rent deposit. Appeal was disposed with directive for full payment while adjusting utility charges. (Paras 1-14)
(B) Rent deposit - Mandatory compliance - The court emphasized that non-payment of rent during litigation severely prejudices the landlord’s rights, requiring adherence to payment obligations. (Paras 10-11)
(C) Maintainability of suit - The court noted the tenant's claim of suit being barred under DRC, yet maintained that admitted rent is payable despite suit pending determination. (Paras 5, 11).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tenant challenges trial court's rent order (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. issues of maintainability and rent adjustment (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court analysis on rent obligations and appeals (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. direction on rent payments and trial continuation (Para 12) |
| 5. final orders on payment and trial timeline (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)--The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Tenant (hereinafter, "Tenant") challenging the order dated 21st April, 2018 by which the ld. Trial Court has directed payment of the admitted rent w.e.f. 1st April, 2013 @ Rs.2,200/- per month. The said order reads as under:
"Counsel for defendant has submitted that the rent amount @ Rs.2200/- has been deposited in the Court of Rent Controller upto 31st March, 2013 and the copy of receipts were filed on court record on last date. It is further submitted that defendant has been sending money orders but the Plaintiff is deliberately not accepting the same. Proxy Counsel has sought pass over for 12.15 pm for clarification regarding the rent amount deposited before the Rent Controller. Counsel for defendant has submitted that he may not be able to appear at 12.15 pm but court may pass appropriate order after hearing the Counsel for Plaintiff.
At 12.15 pm.
Counsel for Plaintiff has submitted that the defendant has not filed the original receipts but court may pass the order since 1st April, 2013. It is further submitted that however the plaintiff has not received any rent since 01.12.2012. I have considered the submissions. It is admitted by the defendant regarding the rent being Rs.2200/- whereas higher rent has been claimed by the plaintiff. However, without prejudice to the higher rent the present application under order 15A CPC has been moved by the plaintiff to pay the admitted rent since 01.12.2012. Considering the pleadings along with the copy of receipt regarding payment of rent upto 31.03.2014 before the rent controller and the submissions of the Counsels, the application is allowed since 01.04.2013 and the defendant is directed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.2200/- per month since 01.04.2013 till date and continue to pay such rent on each hearing till disposal of the suit.
Put up on 09.05.2018 for payment of the rent accrued till date."
2. The Tenant approached the ld. ADJ by way of appeal, challenging the said order. Vide order dated 4th June, 2018, the ld. ADJ stayed the order dated 21st April, 2018, subject to deposit of 50% of the total arrears of rent. The said order reads as under:
"Operation of order dated 21.04.2018 is stayed subject to deposit of 50% of total arrear of rent as per the direction of Ld. Trial Court dated 21.04.2018 before next date of hearing i.e. 02.07.2018.
Let notice of appeal be issued to the respondent on filing of PF/RC, returnable for 25.08.2018. TCR be called for NDOH.
Copy of the order be given dasti."
3. Ld. counsel for the Tenant submits that the said order has been complied with by the Tenant. However, on 1st August, 2019, the ld. ADJ rejected the Tenant's appeal on the ground that the same is not maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. Hence, the Tenant challenges the order dated 21st April, 2018 before this Court.
4. Ld. counsels for the parties inform this Court that while the present petition was being preferred by the Tenant, on 16th September, 2019, the ld. Trial Court struck off the Tenant's defence for non-payment/non-deposit of the arrears of rent.
5. The submission of ld. counsel for the Tenant is that one of the issues which has been framed in the suit relates to the maintainability of the suit, as it is the Tenant's contention that the suit is barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, "DRC"). Ld. counsel submits that if the suit itself is not maintainable, the order directing deposit of the rent is vitiated and, in fact, the maintainability of the suit itself ought to be decided first.
6. On the other hand
