Dhan Singh vs Bhagwan
1996 Latest Caselaw 67 Del

JUDGMENT

C.M. Nayar, J.

(1) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 16, 1986 of Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The learned judge set aside the judgment dated 21st December, 1985 of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

(2) The respondent/landlord filed a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on September 1, 1983 wherein it was averred that the respondent was the owner/landlord in respect of one shop in property No.794A/6, Gali Doodhwali, Mehrauli on the allegation that the appellant/ tenant had never paid nor tendered the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.30.00 per month with effect from July 1, 1982 despite service of notice of demand dated 31st May, 1983. The prayer for eviction, as a consequence, was made. The appellant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and it was contended that he tendered rent for the month of May, 1982 by money order as the respondent/landlord was not issuing receipts. The amount of the said money order was refused by the respondent. Thereafter the appellant started depositing the rent in the Court and right upto 31st March, 1984 the rent was deposited in various courts under Section 27 of the Act. It was, therefore, prayed that the petition of the respondent be dismissed.

(3) The Additional Rent Controller appraised the evidence on record with regard to the deposit made by the appellant on different dates. The respondent also admitted that the rent from 1st July, 1983 to 31st October, 1983 was deposited under the provisions of Section 27 of the Act in the court of Shri Ajit Bharioke, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The appellant further contended that he deposited the rent for the period November 1, 1983 to 29th February,1984 in the courts of Shri D.K.Saini and Shri B.B.Chaudhry, Additional Rent Controllers, Delhi. The notice of demand dated May 31, 1983 indicated that the respondent demanded the rent with effect from July, 1982 from the appellant. The appellant placed on record the money order coupon vide which he sent the rent for the month of November, 1981 and the same was refused by the respondent. He also placed on record the money order coupon by which the rent for the months of July and August, 1982 was sent to the respondent and he refused to accept the same on 10th August, 1982. The Rent Controller took these facts into consideration and came to a firm finding that the respondent had been refusing to accept the arrears of rent sent by the appellant without any reasonable excuse. Reply to the demand notice was sent by the appellant on 9th June, 1983 within the statutory period of two months from the date of demand notice wherein it was mentioned that the rent for the month of May, 1982 was refused by the respondent and thereafter the rent with effect from 1st June, 1982 onwards had been deposited by the respondent in the court of Shri O.P.Gogne, A.R.C. and the respondent was at liberty to withdraw the same. This was in pursuance to the provisions under Section 27 of the Act. The original challans were produced by the appellant for rent from 1st June, 1982 to 31st August, 1982 and deposited in the said court. Similarly, rent for the remaining period was also deposited. The Controller in this background held that the appellant had been tendering rent to the respondent through money orders and the respondent had been refusing the same on one pretext or the other. In these circumstances, the appellant had no option than to deposit the rent under the provisions of Section 27 of the Act and inform the petitioner regarding the same. There fore, it was held that the rent due was deposited within the period of two months of the demand notice and this amounted to a valid tender to the respondent. The petition, as a consequence, was dismissed.

(4) The respondent filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The learned judge found that there was no evidence that the rent had been deposited after it was tendered to the respondent/landlord and, therefore, the deposits as mentioned in paragraph 11 of the judgment could not be considered to be a valid deposit. He particularly referred to the reply to notice of the respondent in paragraph Ii, which reads as follows: "PRESUMING that all these documents may be considered in evidence in view of the original challan fried it may be held that the rent from 1.6.1982 to 31.8.1982, Rs.90.00 was deposited on 20.10.1982, from 1.9.1982 to 31.10.1982, Rs.60.00 was deposited on 26.10.1982, from 1.11.1982 to 28.2.1983, Rs.l20.00 was deposited on 11.2.1983, from 1.3.1983 to 30.6.1983, Rs.l20.00 was deposited on 22.7.1983. These deposits have been made in the court and are proved by the original challans. But the court still has to decide whether these deposits were valid. In Ram Saran v. Mishri Lal 1984 Rajdhani Law Reporter 149 it was held that deposit of rent with the courts without first tendering to the landlord or without intimation to the landlord does not fulfill the requirement of section 15(1) or 14(2) of the Act. Since there is .no evidence that the rent has been deposited after it was tendered to the landlord therefore these above said deposits can not be considered to be a valid deposits."

(5) The Tribunal accordingly on the basis of the above, came to the conclusion that since full particulars of the deposits were not given, therefore, it could.not be said that the respondent was informed of the amounts lying in deposit with the court in his name which he was entitled to withdraw unconditionally. The finding that the rent was properly tendered was held erroneous and accordingly reversed. The Tribunal, however, concluded that since this was a case of first default, the appellant was entitled to" protection of Section 14(2) of the Act. However, as the defense of the appellant had been struck off because the order under Section 15(1) of the Act had not been complied with, the appellant could not be given benefit of Section 14(2).

(6) The approach of the Tribunal is patently erroneous. Firstly, the Additional Rent Controller, on appreciation of evidence and perusal of the relevant material on record; came to the conclusion that the appellant had been tendering rent through Money Orders and the same were refused by the respondent on one pretext or the other. This finding was unassailable and the only reason why the Tribunal to set aside the same was in view of the fact that since full particulars of the deposits were not given it could not be said that the respondent was informed of the amount lying in deposit with court in his name. This is merely a technical objection and it cannot be sustained when a clear finding has been returned by the Additional Rent Controller that there has been a valid and proper tender. The appellant may have committed a minor lapse in not giving full particulars in the reply to the notice but this cannot be treated as an error so serious to non- suit him. Secondly, the Tribunal erred in giving a finding on the ground that as the defense of the appellant had been struck off for non compliance of the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act, he was not entitled to protection of Section 14(2) of the Act. This cannot be accepted as once the Controller has come to the conclusion that the appellant had rendered a valid tender the order striking out the defense becomes meaningless. The petition was disposed of on merits by the Additional Rent Controller in favour of the appellant and there was no occasion for the Tribunal to reverse the finding merely on this ground:

(7) For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dated 16th April, 1986 is set aside and that of the Additional Rent Controller dated 21st December, 1985 is restored. The appeal as a consequence is allowed.

(8) Taking an overall view of the facts of the present case, it will be in the interest of justice to increase the rent of the demised premises. The appellant had been paying rent at the rate of Rs.30.00 per month since the inception of tenancy. The value of the money has dwindled over the years due to large scale inflation and it will be just, fair and reasonable to increase-the rent to a sum of Rs.250.00 per month with effect from 1st January, 1996. The appellant shall pay to the respondent that amount by the 10th day of each succeeding month. There will be no order as to costs.