Sh. Jasbir Singh Thr His Guardian ... vs Sh. S.K. Verma
2014 Latest Caselaw 6009 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+    CM(M) 1032/2014 & C.M.Nos.19091/2014 (Stay), 19092/2014
     (Exemption)

%                                                    20th November, 2014

SH. JASBIR SINGH THR HIS GUARDIAN SH. GURCHARAN SINGH

                                                          ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr.Atul Aggarwal, Advocate.

                          VERSUS

SH. S.K. VERMA                                                ...... Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns

the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Additional Rent

Controller (ARC) dated 19.11.2013 and the First Appellate Court/Rent

Control Tribunal dated 21.4.2014; by which the defence of the

petitioner/tenant has been struck off for non-compliance of the order with

respect to payment of pendente lite rent.

2. It is not disputed that an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent

Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was passed by the

court of the ARC on 24.1.2008 directing deposit of the pendente lite rent. It

is also not disputed that this order was not complied with and the

respondent/landlord moved an application on 31.10.2008 under Section

15(7) of the Act for striking off the defence of the petitioner/tenant.

Thereafter the brother of the petitioner/tenant namely Sh.Gurcharan Singh

moved an application for appointing himself as a guardian ad litem of the

petitioner/tenant on 22.4.2009, and which application was allowed on

02.2.2013. However, even thereafter deposit of rent was not made on behalf

of the petitioner/tenant by his guardian. Thus the application under Section

15(7) of the Act filed by the respondent/landlord for striking off the defence

of the petitioner/tenant was allowed by the trial court on 19.11.2013.

3. The facts of the present case show that from 24.1.2008 till the passing

of the order by the ARC on 19.11.2013 i.e. for almost six years, the

petitioner did not deposit the amount of rent. Courts below note that it is the

guardian himself who was before being appointed as a guardian in fact was

conducting the case on behalf of the petitioner/tenant, and therefore there

was no reason why the order under Section 15(1) dated 24.1.2008 for

deposit of pendente lite rent should not have been complied with by the

petitioner/tenant. Even if it is taken that the petitioner/tenant was not of

sound mind, and therefore the petitioner/tenant had a reason not to deposit

the pendente lite rent upto 02.2.2013 and also simultaneously ignoring the

fact that actually the guardian himself was regularly appearing in court on

behalf of the petitioner/tenant before being appointed as a guardian, even

then there was no reason why immediately after 02.2.2013 the order dated

24.1.2008 was not complied with. Even much later on 19.11.2013 when the

impugned order of the ARC was passed (i.e after about 10 months after

passing of the order dated 02.2.2013), no rent was deposited in compliance

of the order under Section 15(1) of the Act dated 24.1.2008. The obduracy,

contumaciousness and malafides of the petitioner/tenant are writ large, and it

is now settled law that the delay in deposit of the rent which is required to be

made under Section 15(1) of the Act cannot be condoned as a matter of

routine and valid/necessary facts/reasons have to exist for non-compliance of

the order of deposit of pendente lite rent.

4. As already stated above, the stand of the petitioner/tenant of the

guardian being appointed on his behalf only on 02.2.2013 and till then order

of deposit of rent could not be complied with was only a convenient

argument because the guardian even before being appointed as such was

regularly appearing in the case. Further, that the guardian of the

petitioner/tenant did not understand that he should deposit the rent till

actually the delay is condoned is again a most frivolous argument to say the

least because surely there is no bar to first deposit the rent and thereafter

seek condonation of delay.

5. Dismissed.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J NOVEMBER 20, 2014 KA