Delhi High Court
Narendra Singh Decd Thr Lrs & Anr vs Balmukand & Anr on 5 December, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 05.12.2012
+ CM(M) 1576/2010, CM 22095/2010
NARENDRA SINGH DECD THR LRS & ANR
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Samar Bansal, Adv.
versus
BALMUKAND & ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Respondents in person.
+ CM(M) 1646/2010, CM 23205/2010
DARSHAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Samar Bansal, Adv.
versus
BALMUKAND & ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Respondents in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. By this common judgment, both the above referred petitions are
being disposed of as they arise out of the two identical orders of Addl.
Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT).
2. The petitioners are the tenants under the respondents in respect
of their respective portions of the suit premises. Their eviction was
sought by the respondents under Sections 14(1)(b), 14(1)(d), 14(1)(h)
of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act'). Identical separate
orders were passed against them under Section 15(2) of the Act. There
being certain delays/defaults in compliance of the said order under
Section 15(2) of the Act, the applications were filed under Section
15(7) of the Act seeking striking of their defences. The petitioners filed
application seeking condonation of delay in depositing the rents in
compliance of the orders under Section 15(2) of the Act. The learned
ARC vide separate orders of 6.2.2010 condoned the delay, subject to
payment of cost and simultaneously dismissed the applications under
Section 15(7) of the respondents. The respondents carried the matters
in appeal before the ARCT, who set aside the orders of ARC and
struck off the defence of the petitioners under Section 15(7) of the Act.
These orders are under challenge in the instant petitions.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the
respondents in person and on going through the orders of ARC as also
that of the ARCT, it comes out to be an admitted case that the
petitioners failed to comply the orders under Section 15(2) of the Act
in its terms and spirit, meaning thereby that there were certain delays in
deposit of rents in compliance of these orders. The submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioners was that the orders under Section
15(2) were passed on 22.1.2003 and having regard to the meager rent,
it was also ordered that the rent could be deposited annually as well.
There is no dispute in this regard.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted and which was
not controverted by the respondents, that on certain occasions, the
petitioners had deposited the rents in advance and rather prior to the
passing of the orders under Section 15(1). The learned ARC had
specifically taken note of this fact as well as the fact that the rent for
the period from February, 2008 to January, 2009 was deposited in
advance on 28.2.2008, and similarly, rent for the period February, 2009
to January, 2010 was also deposited in advance on 12.3.2009. Noting
these aspects of the matter, the learned ARC recorded that the delay in
deposits for the period February, 2004 to January, 2005 could not be
said to be willful and contumacious.
5. The condonation of delay was sought by the petitioners stating
that they had engaged a counsel Mr.H.R.Gupta, who was aged 85 years
and was suffering from old age ailments. Since they had full faith in
him, they used to pay the rents in advance to him. However, he
inadvertently, delayed in depositing the rents on annual basis. Since
Mr.H.R.Gupta expired during the pendency of the case, they remained
under bona fide impression that the rents which were given to him, had
been deposited regularly in advance. It was also their plea that they
had come to know about the delay only from the application that was
filed by the respondents under Section 15(7) and on the receipt of the
report of the court official Naib Nazir. The learned ARC noted that all
these facts were not disputed by the respondents and that some delays
have occasioned because of no fault of the petitioners. Relying upon
the decisions in Bharat Pulverising Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Tarachand
Malik B. Trust etc. 1971 RLR (Note) 35, Ram Murti Vs. Bhola
Nath & Anr., 1984 SC 1392, Kamla Devi Vs. Vasdev, (1995) 1 SCC
356, the Controller condoned the delays in exercise of his discretion.
6. The learned ARCT while recognizing that the ARC has the
power to condone the delay and that there was substantial compliance
of the orders under Section 15(2) of the Act, proceeded to note that
there were as many as 30 defaults in depositing the rent. The learned
ARCT did not give any credence to the plea of the petitioners that they
had been paying rent annually to their counsel Mr.H.R.Gupta, who was
suffering from old age ailments and ultimately expired. It is true that
the petitioners ought to have been more vigilant in depositing the rent
as ordered under Section 15(2) of the Act, but in the given facts and
circumstances, I do not see any infirmity or perversity in the discretion
that was exercised by the ARC in condoning the delays. In the
undisputed given facts, the plea that they had been paying the rents to
their counsel Mr.H.R.Gupta, cannot be taken to be a pretext, as
observed by the learned ARCT.
7. In view of my above discussion, the orders of learned ARCT
suffer from manifest illegality. Consequently, the orders of ARCT are
set aside and that of the ARC are maintained. At the end, the
respondents expressed their grievance that the petitions pending before
the lower court are of the year 2002 and the petitioners have managed
to delay the trial for all these years. Without commenting in this
regard, it is directed that the learned ARC shall expeditiously try and
dispose of the petitions within nine months from today. The parties
may appear before the concerned ARC on 18th December, 2012.
8. With the above directions, the petitions are allowed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
DECEMBER 05, 2012/akb
