Surain Singh vs Tuisi Ram Araun
1995 Latest Caselaw 936 Del

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar, J.

(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal passing an eviction order against the appellant under clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein after referred to as the Act). Both the courts below have declined to give benefits of section 14(2) of the Act to the appellant tenant.

(2) The grievance of the appellant is that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Murti vs. Bhola Nath, the appellant is entitled to the benefits of section 14(2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellant has not really challenged the decision of the Rent Control Authorities on the question of passing an eviction order under section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The only point raised before this court is about denial of benefits of section 14(2) of the Act by the authorities below.

(3) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present appeal, the basic facts are that an eviction petition was Filed by the respondent landlord against the present appellant under clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act on the ground that inspite of service of notice dated 8th January 1971 the tenant had failed to pay the arrears of rent within two months after the date of service of the notice. The Rent Control Authorities have found the fact about the service of notice of demand as well as its non-compliance in favor of the landlord and those findings are not in challenge before this court. A further fact which is relevant for the purpose of present appeal is that an order under section 15(1) of the Act was passed by the Addl. Controller on 16th October 1971 directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within one month and to continue to deposit rent thereafter month by month by 15th of each succeeding month. The tenant Filed an appeal against the order dated 16th October 1971 which was dismissed on 2nd August 1972 by the Rent Control Tribunal. The order was complied with by the tenant. The Addl. Controller without going into the merits of various pleas taken by the tenant dismissed the eviction petition holding that the tenant had enjoyed the benefits of section 14(2) of the Act vide his order dated 7th September 1972. The tenant filed an appeal against the said judgment of Addl. Controller which was allowed by the Rent Control Tribunal by its judgment dated 16th March, 1973 and the case was remanded back to the Addl. Controller for deciding all the pleas on merits. Thereafter it appears that the tenant committed default in depositing the rent during one month. The rent for the month of April 1973 ought to have been deposited by 15th May 1973 but it was actually deposited on 22nd May 1973. The landlord moved an application under section 15(7) of the Act seeking striking out of the defense of the tenant. The application was, however, dismissed by the Addl. Controller holding that the delay in deposit of rent was not contumacious or willful. In other words the delay in deposit of rent by one week stood condoned. This order of the Addl. Controller was upheld in appeal by the Tribunal. From the ultimate eviction order passed by the Addl. Controller the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by its impugned judgment dated 30th April 1979. The benefits of section 14(2) of the Act was denied to the tenant by both the Rent Control Authorities on the ground that non-compliance of the order under section 15(1) of the Act would deprive the tenant of such benefits. For this reliance was placed on Hem Chand vs. D.C.M. & Ors. 1977 (2) RCf 438.

(4) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Murti vs. Bhola Nath, , the law as laid down in Hem Chand's case is no longer good law and the tenant is entitled to benefits of section 14(2) of the Act. In view of this decision of the Supreme Court, and various decisions of this court following the said Supreme Court decision, it is no longer open to the respondent to contend that in the facts of the present case that the tenant is not entitled to the benefits of section 14(2) of the Act. One week's delay in deposit of rent stood condoned as per order of the Addl. Controller which was upheld by the Tribunal. This, in other words, will mean that there is no default in compliance of order under section 15(1) of the Act and the default, if any, stood condoned. In these circumstances the appellant tenant was entitled to the benefits of section 14(2) of the Act. The appeal is accepted to this extent and the eviction order under section 14(l)(a) of the Act is maintained. However, the appellant tenant is granted benefits under section 14(2) of the Act.

(5) The appeal is disposed of. No costs.