Delhi High Court
Prem Chand Gupta & Anr. vs M/S Fine Metal Works on 5 March, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M. (Main) No.360 of 2009
% 05.03.2010
PREM CHAND GUPTA & ANR. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sachin Datta & Ms. Shaila Arora,
Advocates.
Versus
M/S. FINE METAL WORKS ......Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay K. Jha, Advocate.
Date of Reserve: 1st February, 2010
Date of Order: 5th March, 2010
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 3rd June, 2008 passed by
learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby learned Additional Rent Control
Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19th July,
2007of learned Additional Rent Controller.
2. An eviction petition was filed by the petitioners against respondent/tenant on the
ground of non-payment of rent and addition alterations under Section 14 (1) (a) and 14
(1) (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act. The order of learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal
is challenged only on the ground that arrears of rent tendered after demand notice, did not
include interest @ 15 per cent per annum payable by the tenant as envisaged under
Section 26 of Delhi Rent Control Act, thus, it was not a valid tender. There is no dispute
to the fact that after service of demand notice, the tenant tendered arrears of rent but
without interest. The issue raised is that the tenant was supposed to pay arrears along
with 15 per cent interest for unpaid period and not simply accumulated arrears. It is
submitted that since the interest was not tendered along with unpaid rent, it was not
lawful tender of arrears of rent in terms of Delhi Rent Control Act and, therefore, the
petitioners were entitled for a decree of eviction.
3. This issue was considered by the learned Additional Rent Controller as well as
Additional Rent Control Tribunal and both found that the demand notice sent by the
petitioners to the respondent did not ask for payment of 15 per cent simple interest on the
unpaid rent for unpaid period. The notice merely demanded arrears of rent and since the
rent as demanded in the notice was tendered, the tenant would not be liable for eviction
and no ground was made out by the petitioners. It is contended by the petitioners that
arrears of rent include the rent payable coupled with the interest as legally recoverable
from the tenant under Section 26 of Delhi Rent Control Act which reads as under :-
"26. Receipt to be given for rent paid. -
(1) Every tenant shall pay rent within the time fixed by contract or
in the absence of such contract, by the fifteenth day of the month
next following the month for which it is payable [and where any
default occurs in the payment of rent, the tenant shall be liable to
pay simple interest at the rate of fifteen per cent. per annum from
the date on which such payment of rent is due to the date on which
it is paid].
(2) Every tenant who makes a payment of rent to his landlord shall
be entitled to obtain forthwith from the landlord or his authorized
agent a written receipt for the amount paid to him., signed by the
landlord or his authorized agent:
[Provided that it shall be open to the tenant to remit the rent to his
landlords by postal money order.]
(3) If the landlord or his authorized agent refuses or neglects to
deliver to the tenant a receipt referred to in sub-section (2), the
Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by the
tenant within two months from the date of payment and after
hearing the landlord or his authorized agent, by order direct the
landlord or his authorized agent to pay to the tenant, by way of
damages, such sum not exceeding double the amount of rent paid
by the tenant and the costs of the application and shall also grant a
certificate to the tenant in respect of the rent paid."
4. There is no doubt that Delhi Rent Control Act envisages payment of delayed rent
along with interest, however, a landlord is also supposed to make a demand under Section
14 (1) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act of the arrears of rent as payable by the tenant till the
date of service of notice. A perusal of demand notice sent by the petitioners to the
respondent would show that the petitioners had not asked the respondent to pay interest
along with arrears. The petitioners simply demanded the unpaid rent and they did not talk
of interest. The tenant under these circumstances tendered the unpaid rent.
5. It is contended by counsel for the respondent, who put appearance, that the
respondent was not averse to make payment of any interest. Since the demand made by
the petitioners was only of the arrears, tender was made of the amount as demanded in the
notice and, therefore, it was not a case where there was refusal of payment despite
demand warranting eviction.
6. I consider that looking at the fact that the respondent had tendered the amount as
demanded by the petitioners, the petitioners cannot take a plea that despite demand
notice, the tenant failed to tender the rent. Section 14 (1) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act
envisages a situation where the tenant fails to tender arrears of rent despite demand. Had
the landlord made a demand of interest @ 15 per cent for unpaid period on arrears and the
tenant had not tendered the arrears of rent along with interest, the situation would have
been different. But in the present case, since no demand of 15 per cent interest was made,
the question of not tendering the demanded arrears of rent does not arise.
7. I, therefore, consider that the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal rightly
dismissed the appeal on this count. There is no force in the petition. The petition is
hereby dismissed.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
MARCH 05, 2010
'AA'
