JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.
Page 2577
1. C.M.(M) 661/2003 is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 28.8.2003 in R.C.A. 541/2003 whereby the learned Tribunal has, while affirming the order of the Page 2578 Additional Rent Controller dated 2.7.2003, held that interest on delayed payment of rent does not constitute the component of rent legally recoverable for the purpose of Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') and consequently the contractual rent having been deposited within the period of two months from the date of notice without interest was valid tender giving no cause of action to maintain a petition under Section 14 of the Act.
2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the Tribunal are:
"1. The appellant served on the respondent a notice dated 10.9.92 demanding arrears of rent @897/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.5.92 to September, 92. In the notice demand was also made for payment of interest and electricity charges which were due to the appellant from the respondent at the relevant time. Respondent remitted the amount of rent amounting to Rs. 4,485/-. The amount of Rs. 4,485/- was received by the appellant on 9.10.92. The receipt of the amount was within two months of the notice of demand.
2. Interest was not paid nor the electricity charges as demanded was paid.
3. The petition continued from 92 onwards. On the passage of three years appellant served upon the respondent a notice showing intention to enhance the rent by 10 per cent. Accordingly, the order under Section 15(1) DRC Act which was initially passed on 31.3.93 was modified on 24.11.95 and further on 11.5.99. While expressing the intention to enhance the rent appellant also claimed in the notice to seek eviction of the respondent in the event of non-compliance of the said notice.
4. The court below after considering the evidence adduced by the parties has passed the impugned order."
3. The question that arose for consideration before the learned Tribunal, as may be noted from the facts of the case, was "whether the amount of interest which is claimed by the petitioner is inclusive in rent?" Further "do the electricity charges, not paid as claimed, form part of rent?" The Tribunal, as already noticed, has held that interest under Section 26 of the Act cannot be termed as "rent"; consequently is not legally recoverable for the purpose of maintaining a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.
4. It is contended by the petitioner who appears in person that the rent has not been defined in the Act and Section 26 thereof creates a liability to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent on delayed payment of rent which then becomes "rent" legally recoverable by the landlord and payable by the tenant who seeks protection under the Act. He submits that interest on late payment of rent would become part of arrears of rent legally recoverable from the tenant which the tenant is bound to pay within two months from the date on which notice of payment of arrears of rent has been served on him in the manner provided under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The tenant's failure to comply with the demand so raised, would expose him to eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. He further submits that even electricity charges which are obligatory to be paid by the tenant for consumption of electric energy are legal dues Page 2579 which the tenant must necessarily discharge if he wants any protection under the Act.
5. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has filed written submissions where he has reiterated the findings of the Tribunal claiming that rent is only that portion of liability which is contractual in nature and cannot include the statutory liability of interest which only accrues on default. He also submits that electricity charges are not part of arrears of rent which can attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.
6. I have heard both the parties and have carefully gone through the written submissions filed by them as also the judgment under challenge. In my opinion, the words "neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which the notice of demand for payment of arrears has been served" in Section 14(1)(a) of the Act would include in its ambit the interest accrued on the contractual amount as "rent" for use and occupation of the premises in question. The interest accrued on late payment under Section 26 of the Act becomes arrears of rent legally recoverable and if not paid within two months of the date of which notice of payment for arrears of rent has been served on the tenant can render the tenant liable to be evicted under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. For this proposition of law, I need hardly go beyond a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and Ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Ors., where the Supreme Court, though appreciating the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, has, with reference to the Delhi Rent Control Act, held that interest on arrears is part of rent required to be deposited by the tenant at the first hearing. It goes without saying that even the increase of rent by ten per cent envisaged under the Delhi Rent control Act, would be legally recoverable rent and if the increase of ten per cent, as demanded in accordance with law, has not been paid or tendered within two months of the service of notice upon the tenant, action would lie under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The tenant cannot claim protection of contractual rates for use and occupation of the premises contrary to the statutory mandate which makes it obligatory upon the tenant to pay interest on delayed payment of rent as also enjoins upon him to pay a ten per cent increase in rent over the period of time. Consequently, I hold that "rent" includes in its ambit "contractual rent" together with "interest on delayed payment", if any, as also "statutory increase of rent" for the the purpose of eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.
7. Coming to the question of whether non-payment of electricity dues would enable the landlord to bring action under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, I hold that unless contractual rent is inclusive of fixed electric charges, the actual amount required to be paid by the tenant to the authorities for consumption of electric energy would not be rent legally recoverable. However, if the landlord has paid any dues on behalf of the tenant, he may recover the same in accordance with law, but shall not be able to maintain an action under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.
Page 2580
8. The legal questions raised in this petition having been answered, the matter is remanded to the Rent Control Tribunal to dispose of the same after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. C.M.(M) 661 of 2003 is disposed of.