Delhi High Court
Subhash Batra vs Shri Chamman Lal & Another on 13 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999 VIAD Delhi 86, 82 (1999) DLT 385
Author: V Jain
Bench: V Jain
ORDER
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal which dismissed the appeal of the tenant, the tenant-petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
2. The order of deposit of rent Under Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was passed on 28th August,1991 whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit rent @ Rs. 300/- per month under Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Ultimately, the Additional Rent Controller on 22nd April, 1999, on the material placed on record held that pursuant to a compromise entered into between the parties it was agreed that w.e.f. 7th August, 1988 rent @ Rs. 600/- per month was to be paid by respondent-tenant. That document was filed in the Court of Additional Rent Controller as R-1. The petitioner did not deny the execution of that document nor deny the contents thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of East India C. Mfg. Vs. S.P. Gupta 1985 RLR 292 at the most rent @10% could have been agreed to be enhanced by the petitioner and the original rent which was agreed between the parties @ Rs.300/- per month could not have been modified by the Additional Rent Controller to Rs. 600/- per month and the Rent Control Tribunal also fell in the same error.
3. Second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that electricity charges amounting to Rs. 3,633 ought to have been adjusted towards payment of arrears of rent pursuant to the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 11th November,1998.
4. There is an obvious fallacy in the argument of counsel for the petitioner. The case of the respondent-landlady was that the premises was let out @Rs. 600/- per month whereas this claim was contested by the tenant petitioner before me who took the plea that the rent was @Rs.300/- per month only. When an order under Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was passed, the Additional Rent Controller, prima facie, in view of the admitted stand of the petitioner passed the order of deposit of rent Under Section 15(1) of the Act @ Rs. 300/- per month. However,it was brought to the notice of Additional Rent Controller that the writing was executed by the petitioner in terms of compromise entered into between the parties whereas the Petitioner has agreed to pay the rent from 7th August, 1988 @Rs.600/- per month. The Additional Rent Controller was fully justified in passing a final order of the payment of rent @ Rs. 600/- per month. In view of the compromise executed as well as contents thereof having been admitted by the petitioner, the petitioner can not turn around and state that the rate of rent was Rs. 300/- and not Rs. 600/- per month. The case cited by the counsel for the petitioner is totally distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of this case.
5. With regard to the other objections to the impugned order raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Rent Control Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the deposit of Rs. 3633/- which was deposited by the petitioner on account of electricity charges. Electricity charges or any other charges cannot be adjusted towards the arrears of rent. If there was a direction by the Additional Rent Controller that the charges were to be paid not by the petitioner but by the respondent, the petitioner has got other remedy to recover the same.
6. Dismissed.
