Sant Ram Sodhi vs G.N.S. Roddey
1987 Latest Caselaw 508 Del

JUDGMENT

H.C. Goel, J.

(1) Sant Ram Sodhi, appellant, earlier had filed a petition for eviction of G.H.N.S. Roddey, respondent-tenant, from the demised premises in the court of the Additional Rent Controller on the ground of non-payment of rent falling under S. 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). The Additional Rent Controller proposed to pass an order under S. 15(1) of the Act regarding the payment or deposit of the arrears of rent and future rent by the respondent. The case of the respondent has been that the contractual rate of rent was Rs. 1,100 per month with effect from August 1, 1982. However, as per a term of the contract between the parties if the respondent had paid a sum of Rs. 45,000 to the appellant by October 27, 1982 the rent was to stand reduced to Rs. 400 per month. The farther case of the respondent was that he paid a sum of Rs. 43,200 in cash to the appellant on October 27, 1982 and as such the rent stood reduced to Rs. 400 per month with effect from October 27, 1982 and that he was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 400 per month with effect from October 27, 1982. The Additional Rent Controller after going through the documents as placed by the parties on the record and hearing the parties' counsel directed the respondent to pay or deposit rent with effect from August 1, 1982 up-to-date calculated at the rate of Rs. 400 per month within one month from December 12, 1985, the date of' the order, and to keep on depositing future rent at the same rate, month by month. The Rent Control Tribunal on appeal by the appellant against the said order of the Additional Rent Controller modified the order of the Additional Rent Controller. He directed the respondent to deposit in court the arrears of rent with effect from August 1, 1982, calculated at the rate of Rs. 1,100 per month arid future rent at the same rate. It was further ordered by the Tribunal that out of the amount deposited by the respondent under his order the appellant will be entitled to withdraw a sum calculated at the rate of Rs. 400 per month and that regarding the balance amount as deposited by the respondent the matter shall be decided at the time of the passing of the final order in the eviction petition.

(2) The appellant-landlord has felt aggrieved by the direction of the Rent Control Tribunal insofar as it ordered that the amount of arrears of rent over and above the amount as calculated at the rate of Rs. 400 per month was not allowed to be paid to him and it was directed to remain in deposit in the court till the decision about the same at the time of final hearing of the eviction petition. This part of the Rent Control Tribunal's order has been challenged by the appellant in this appeal.

(3) Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that under the provisions of S. 15(1) of the Act the only proper order that can be passed by the Rent Controller is to direct the tenant to pay to the landlord the arrears of- rent and future rent at a particular rate. It is submitted that the Rent Controller does not have the power or the discretion to order mere deposit of such amount without further clarifying that the amount as deposited shall be liable to be laid to the landlord forthwith. His submission is that under S. 15(1) of the Act the actual payment of' the arrears of rent and future rent has to be secured to the landlord. It was submitted that the Rent Controller has necessarily to say both the things in the order viz., that the amount shall be paid to the landlord or deposited with the Rent Controller. The further submission is that the direction regarding payment of rent precedes the direction regarding deposit of that very rent means or implies that the deposit is one other mode for causing payment of the amount of rent to the landlord forthwith on its deposit. On this premise it is submitted that after the Rent, Control Tribunal had formed the view that a direction should be made against the tenant requiring him to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 1,100 per month the only course available to the Tribunal was to have directed the respondent-tenant to pay to him (the appellant) or to deposit in the court of the Rent Controller the arrears of rent and future rent at the rate of Rs. 1,1 (X) per month and that the further condition placed by the Rent Control Tribunal that the amount in excess of the one as calculated at the rate of Rs. 400 per month shall remain deposited in the court of the Rent Controller till a final decision of the eviction petition is bad and illegal. Mr. Chaudhary also referred to Rule Ii of the rules framed under the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959. The rule is extracted below :-

"11.Payment of rent deposited.-The Controller shall order the amount of rent deposited to be paid to the landlord or persons entitled to the rent either in cash or by cheque."

Mr. Chaudhary submitted that this rule says that the amount of rent deposited with the Rent Controller is to be paid to the landlord and that this also supports his contention that any amount that may be deposited under the provisions of S. 15(1) of the Act is the amount for payment to the landlord and the landlord is entitled to withdraw the same as of right and that accordingly the order of the Rent Control Tribunal directing the non-payment of the amount in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 400 per month is bad.

(4) I may say at the very outset that I do not find any merit in the submissions of Mr. Chaudhary. The language of S. 15(1) of the Act is clear and unambiguous. It says that the Controller shall make an order 'directing the tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Controller' the amount etc, Thus by this provision the Controller is given the power to direct the tenant either to pay the amount of rent or in the alternative to direct the tenant to deposit that amount in the court. There is nothing in this provision to suggest that under this provision all that the Controller can do is to direct the payment of the amount of rent to the landlord and that for that purpose only he may direct the tenant to deposit the amount with him, i.e., for being passed on to the landlord. This interpretation not only ignores the express words 'or deposit' of' the provision, it renders them redundant. In fact it has the effect of mutilating the very provision. The word 'or' occurring in between the words 'to pay to the landlord' and 'deposit' in S. 15(1) clearly means that the Controller is empowered to give either of the two directions viz.. either to order payment of the amount to the landlord or only to deposit the amount with him, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The provision does not admit of any two interpretations. Mr. Chaudhary was unable to give any basis for the interpretation as suggested by him. His assumption that the Controller while passing an order under Section 15(1) has necessarily to say that the tenant shall pay to the landlord or deposit the amount with the Controller is equally baseless. On the plain language of the provision it is clear that the Controller may give direction for either of the two things to be done. Mr. Chaudhary's further submission based on his said assumption must necessarily fail and is even otherwise fallacious and illogical. Jt is no doubt true that in case the Controller wants, to direct the payment of the amount to the landlord, in such a case, he may give the option to the tenant to make payment directly to the landlord or to cause the same to be done by depositing the amount with the Controller for onward payment to the landlord. This is for the facility and convenience of the tenant. But this is quite different from saying that the Controller is bound to pass an order in every case as suggested by Mr. Chaudhary, i.e., that the Controller must by his order secure payment to the landlord straightaway and that the Controller has got no power to direct the deposit of the amount by the tenant and postponement of his decision regarding its payment to the landlord up to the decision by him in tile eviction petition. Apart from the plain language of the provision it is to be noted that S. 15(1) of the Act is a provision conferring certain power and discretion on the Rent Controller. The Controller is not invariably bound to direct the tenant to pay any amount as rent or even to deposit any amount under S. 15(1) and he may decline the prayer of the landlord in that behalf altogether in a fit and proper case. It is a settled principle of interpretation of statutes or provisions thereof that a provision conferring a certain power or a discretion on any court or Tribunal shall be ordinarily construed in a manner which does not have the effect of taking away or abridging the power or the discretion so conferred on the court or the Tribunal if that provision is reasonably capable of such an interpretation. Furthermore that S. 15(1) is a provision beneficial to the tenant, inasmuch as the tenant is protected against an order of eviction being passed against him in a petition for eviction filed on the ground of non-payment of rent if the tenant makes payment or deposits the amount of rent as directed by an order passed under S. 15(1). But for this provision a tenant whose case falls within the four-corners of S. 14(l)(a) of the Act is straightaway liable to eviction. "This provision at the same time also safeguards the legitimate interest of the landlord in that by passing an order under S. 15(1) of the Act the Controller can ensure the recovery of the up-to-date arrears of rent and the rent accruing to the landlord during the pendency of the eviction petition. The provision confers powers on the Controller to pass appropriate orders in the matter so as to be able to balance equities between the landlord and the tenant having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. To interpret the provision in the restricted manner as suggested by Mr. Chaudhary viz., to say that the Controller has the power only to direct either payment of the amount of rent to the landlord or to decline to pay any amount to the landlord, but the Controller does not have the power to direct only deposit of such amount and to postpone the decision regarding the payment thereof, would have the effect of curtailing the said power and discretion to a great extent. Surely such an interpretation is not called for or justified.

(5) Apart from S. 15(1) the only other relevant provision which throws some light on the point at issue is S. 14(2) of the Act. According to S. 14(2) no order for the recovery of possession of any premises is to be made on the ground specified in of. (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1), if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by Section 15. This provision talks of the making of deposit by the tenant as required by S. 15 (underlining to provide emphasis. The above underlined words viz., 'deposit' and as required by S. 15' also go to show that under S. 15 the Controller can pass an order either directing payment of the amount or deposit thereof in the court and the tenant gets the benefit of S. 14 equally by depositing the amount if the direction is to that effect.

(6) Next, so far as rule 11 of the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959 is concerned, a bare reading of that rule shows that this rule talks of payment of rent not to the landlord, but also to any other person who may be entitled to the rent and it only provides for the mode of such payment by the Rent Controller, which according to this rule has to be cither in cash or by cheque. Mr. Nandrajog, learned counsel for the respondent, also submitted that so far as this rule is concerned, this rule only relates to payment of amount deposited under the provisions of Ss. 26 and 27 of the Act. In view of what has been said above regarding this rule, I need not go into that aspect and assuming that rule 11 relates to deposits with the Controller under S. 15(1) also, this rule is absolutely of' no help to the case of the appellant. In view of what has been said there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with costs.