Strict compliance with statutory provisions for rent deposit must be maintained; insufficient rent payment invalidates the claim under the DRC Act.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1957 - Section 14(1)(a) and Section 27 - Applications under Section 27 for depositing rent during disputes over title and eviction proceedings. Tenants may deposit due rent with the Controller when the landlord refuses or fails to accept rent, or if there is a bona fide doubt about the recipient. Court affirmed RCT's dismissal of tenant's applications, determining no valid grounds to support claims of bonafide doubt, proper rent payment, or failure to follow prescribed deposit procedures in Statute (Paras 6, 10, 12, 39, 88, 112-114).

(B) Validity of Rent Payment - The tenant must pay the correct rent amount; insufficient payment of less than the enhanced rent is not valid. Also, procedures for rent deposit must be strictly followed as per DRC Act to maintain validity (Paras 105-106).

Facts of the case:
Tenant sought permission to deposit rent but was found to not comply with statutory provisions nor provide proof of valid tenancy and rent due.

Findings of Court:
The ARC had allowed some applications, but these were reversed based on non-compliance with required legal standards (including valid payments and proper statutory processes).

Issues: Whether the tenant was entitled to deposit rent under Section 27, without valid prior payments or refusing landlord acceptance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled proper procedures must be followed, and that the statutory requirement for valid payments creates a strict compliance obligation (Paras 41, 110).

Result: RCT's decisions upheld for the period of October and November 2020, but tenant's applications for December 2020 to May 2021 dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of eviction petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding entitlement to deposit rent. (Para 5 , 31 , 35)
3. court's observations on statutory provisions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 14)
4. clarification of ratios and interpretations. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 39 , 40)
5. conclusion on the applications and directions. (Para 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116)

JUDGMENT

1. Jalveen Rosha ("Jalveen", hereinafter), claiming to be the owner and landlord of C-10, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110048 ("the suit property"), filed a petition under clause (a) of the proviso to Section 14(1)¹ of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1957 ("the DRC Act"), seeking to evict M/s B.D. Khanna Publicity (the tenant in the first floor of the suit property and referred to, hereinafter, as "Khanna", for the sake of convenience) from the premises in its occupation. The said Eviction Petition is presently pending before the learned Additional Rent Controller ("the learned ARC"). It does not seriously concern us.

Facts

2. The present petition emanates from three petitions, DR 53/2020, DR 61/2020 and DR 67/2020, filed by Khanna before the learned ARC under Section 27(1)² of the DRC Act. The learned ARC allowed all three petitions. Aggrieved, Jalveen appealed to the learned Rent Control Tribunal (the learned RCT), by way of RCT ARCT 02/2021 (directed against the order passed in DR 53/2020), RCT ARCT 03/2021 (directed against the order passed in DR 61/2020) and RCT ARCT 01/2021 (directed against the order passed in DR 57/2020). The impugned judgment dated 6th August, 2021, of the learned RCT, dismisses RCT ARCT 02/2021 and RCT ARCT 03/2021, and allows RCT ARCT 01/2021.

3. Aggrieved, Jalveen and Khanna have both petitioned this Court. CM (Main) 644/2021, instituted by Jalveen, assails the impugned judgment insofar as it dismisses RCT ARCT 02/2021 and RCT ARCT 03/2021. CM (Main) 62/2021, instituted by Khanna, assails the impugned judgment insofar as it allows RCT ARCT 01/2021.

4. Khanna sought, by DR 53/2020 and DR 61/2020, permission of the learned ARC to deposit the rent, in respect of the suit property, for the months of October 2020 and November, 2020, with the learned ARC. DR 67/2020 sought similar permission in respect of the rent payable for the period December 2020 to May 2021. Permission, as sought, was granted by the learned ARC, for all the aforesaid three periods. By the impugned judgment dated 6th August, 2021, however, the learned RCT has reversed the decision of the learned ARC insofar as it related to deposit of rent payable for the period December 2020 to May 2021 and maintained the decision insofar as it related to deposit of the rent payable for the months of October 2020 and November 2020.

5. Before this Court, Jalveen, therefore, urges that Khanna was not entitled to be permitted to deposit the rent with the learned ARC for any of the aforesaid three periods, whereas Khanna would seek to contend, per contra, that the said permission ought to have been granted to it for all the three periods.

The provisions in question

6. As has been correctly observed by the learned RCT, Section 27(1) of the DRC Act applies if

(i) the landlord does not accept rent tendered by the tenant within the time stipulated in Section 26, or

(ii) the landlord refuses or neglects to deliver a receipt referred to in Section 26, or

(iii) there is a bona fide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable.

The existence of any one of these circumstances would suffice for the tenant to be entitled to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller.

7. The first of the three exigencies envisaged by Section 27(1) and delineated in para 6 (supra) arises where the tenant tenders rent within the time stipulated in Section 26 and the landlord does not accept the rent so tendered. Two pre-conditions are, therefore, required to be satisfied for this exigency to apply, viz (a) tendering, by the tenant, of rent, within the period stipulated in Sec