Delhi High Court
Smt. Anita Maharishi vs Sh. Shashi Bhushan on 19 April, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No. 1364/2010
% 19th April, 2011
SMT. ANITA MAHARISHI ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.K.Sharma, Adv.
VERSUS
SH. SHASHI BHUSHAN ...... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is to the judgment of the Addl. Rent Control Tribunal
dated 30.8.2010, and which has condoned one day's delay in the compliance
of payment of rent.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner landlord filed a petition for
eviction on the ground of nonpayment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and in which, an interim order was passed
under Section 15(1) of the said Act to deposit the arrears in court. The
CM(M) 1364/2010. Page 1 of 5
eviction petition was ultimately allowed and eviction ordered by first court of
the Addl. Rent Controller by holding that the benefit under Section 14(2) of
the Act could not be given as the respondent tenant had delayed the deposit
of rent pursuant to the order under Section 15(1) dated 27.2.2009 by one
day.
3. By the impugned judgment, Addl. Rent Control Tribunal relying upon
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti Vs. Bhola
Nath and another AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1362, a decision under the
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, has held that there is no willful default in
deposit of rent and delay of one day was caused on account of peculiar
circumstances inasmuch as the last date was declared as a holiday on
account of Ambedkar Jayanti. The relevant portions of the impugned
judgment are contained in paras 16 to 18 which read as under:-
"16. The ld. Trial Court as well as ld. Counsel for the
respondent placed reliance upon the Delhi Cloth and
General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Hem Chand, AIR 1977, Delhi
275. However, this very authority was subsequently
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Murti
(Supra) and it was observed as under
"The narrow construction placed by the Full
Bench of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Cloth &
General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Hem Chand, AIR 1972
Delhi 275 on the powers of the Controller
contained in Section 15(7) in the context of the
Section 14(2) does not appeal to reason. It is
not inconceivable that the tenant might fail to
comply with the requirements of Section 15(1)
by the date line due to circumstances beyond
his control. For instance, it might not be
CM(M) 1364/2010. Page 2 of 5
possible for the tenant to attend the Court to
make the deposit on the last day if it is
suddenly declared a holiday or on account of a
serious accident to himself or his employee, or
while going to the treasury he is waylaid, or is
stricken with sudden illness, or held up on
account of riots or civil commotion or for that
matter a clerk of his lawyer entrusted with the
money, instead punctually making the deposit
commits the breach of trust and disappears or
some other circumstances intervene which
make it impossible for him for reasons beyond
his control to physically make the deposit by
the due date. There is no reason why the
refusal of the Rent Controller to strike out the
defence of the tenant under Section 15(7) in
such circumstances should not enure to the
benefit of the tenant for the purpose of Section
14 (2)".
17. Perusal of this observation goes to show that the ld.
Addl. Rent Controller or for that matter Rent Control Tribunal
is not powerless to condone the delay in the given case,
which may occur on account of reasons which are beyond the
control of tenant physically make the deposit within period of
one month as stipulated in law. Matter came up for
consideration before the Hon'ble High Court in Rakesh
Kumar vs. Gandharv Singh, 2008 X AD (Delhi) 197. By
relying upon Ram Murti (Supra), Hon'ble High Court
observed that the Addl. Rent Controller or for that matter
Tribunal is not powerless to condoned the delay. However, in
that case, the delay was not condoned because no such
application for condonation of delay was moved either before
the Rent Controller or before the Addl. Rent Controller
Tribunal and it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that
the Addl. Rent Controller or the Tribunal could not ipso facto
condone the delay. In view of these authorative
pronouncement, it become clear that that the Addl. Rent
Controller and the Addl. Rent Controller Tribunal has the
power to condone the delay if the tenant is able to show that
the delay has occurred on account of reasons which were
beyond his control.
18. Turning to case in hand, although the ld. Trial Court
observed two defaults. However, as seen above there was no
CM(M) 1364/2010. Page 3 of 5
default regarding deposit of rent for the period 01.01.2008 to
31.03.2009. As regards the period 01.03.2006 to
31.12.2007, there was a delay of one day. This delay has
occurred on inasmuch as 14.4.2010 was declared holiday on
account of Ambedkar Jayanti and challan was got allowed
and was handed over by the Naib Nazir to the appellant after
lunch on 15.4.2010. As such, since cash counter had closed,
therefore, rent could not be deposited by him, but was
deposited on the next day. Under these circumstances, the
appellant has been able to assign sufficient cause for delay in
depositing the rent by one day, which was beyond his
control. That being so, in the interest of justice, delay in
deposit of rent is condoned subject to Rs.5,000/- as cost,
which is to be paid to the respondent within three days.
Otherwise there is substantial compliance of the order under
Section 15(1) of the DRC Act. That being so, since it was the
case of first default, therefore, the appellant is entitled to
benefit under Section 14(2) of DRC Act. Accordingly,
appellant is granted benefit Section 14(2) of DRC Act.
Accordingly, impugned order dated 19.4.2010 is set-aside
and appeal is allowed." (Emphasis added)
4. In view of the above, the present is hardly a case for interference
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is only invoked in case of
grave injustice or gross illegalities. Condonation of one day's delay in the
facts and circumstances was fully justified. Learned counsel for the
petitioner places reliance upon Om Prakash Vs. Ashwani Kumar Bassi
2010 (8) Scale 562 to contend that even one day's delay could not be
condoned. In my opinion, the decision in the case of Om Prakash (supra)
will not apply because said decision dealt with condonation of delay in filing
of a leave to defend application under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
Act, 1949. This judgment will not apply because the issue of condonation of
delay in the present case is governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958,
and with respect to the provisions in the same, the Supreme Court had held
CM(M) 1364/2010. Page 4 of 5
in the case of Ram Murti (supra) that delay can be condoned in deposit of
rent when the default is not willful and caused by circumstances beyond the
control of a tenant.
5. Dismissed. No costs.
APRIL 19, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
