Jalveen Rosha vs B. D. Khanna Publicity on 6 April, 2022

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Jalveen Rosha vs B. D. Khanna Publicity on 6 April, 2022

1. This petition emanates out of an order dated 6th August, 2021 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge exercising power as the Rent Control Tribunal ("the learned RCT"). The learned RCT has, vide the impugned order, decided three appeals, being RCT ARCT 01/2021, RCT ARCT 02/2021 and RCT ARCT 03/2021. RCT ARCT 01/2021 was an appeal against the order passed in DR 67/2020, RCT ARCT 02/2021 was against the order passed in DR 53/2020 and RCT ARCT 03/2021 was against the order passed in DR 61/2020 by the Additional Rent Controller (the learned ARC).

2. DR 67/2020, DR 53/2020 and DR 61/2020 were applications Signature Not Verified CM(M) 644/2021 Page 1 of 8 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2022 12:04:16 preferred by the respondent-tenant under Section 27(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("the DRC Act"), which reads thus:

"27. Payment of rent during eviction proceedings.

(1) If, in any proceeding for the recovery of possession of any premises on any ground other than that referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (2) of section 22, the tenant contests the claim for eviction, the landlord may, at any stage of the proceeding, make an application to the Rent Authority for an order on the tenant to pay to the landlord the amount of rent legally recoverable from the tenant and the Rent Authority may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, make an order directing the tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Rent Authority within one month of the date of the order, an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid for the period for which the arrears of the rent were legally recoverable from the tenant including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which payment or deposit is made and to continue to pay or deposit, month by month, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate."

3. DR 53/2020 pertained to the month of October 2020, DR 61/2020 pertained to the month of November 2020 and DR 67/2020 pertained to the months of December 2020 to May 2021. By each application, the tenant sought permission to deposit the rent for that month with the learned ARC as the Rent Controller.

4. The learned ARC, vide order dated 6th April, 2021, allowed all the three applications of the respondent-tenant. The petitioner assailed the said decisions before the learned RCT by way of the aforesaid three appeals. The learned RCT has, by the impugned judgment, allowed RCT Signature Not Verified CM(M) 644/2021 Page 2 of 8 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2022 12:04:16 ARCT 01/2021 and has dismissed RCT ARCT 02/2021 and RCT ARCT 03/2021. By per consequence, the prayer of the respondent to deposit the rent, before the learned Rent Controller, for the months of October, 2020 and November, 2020 has been granted whereas the prayer to deposit the rents with the learned Rent Controller for the months of December, 2020 to May, 2021 has been rejected.

5. A bare reading of Section 27(1) reveals that it envisages three distinct circumstances in which permission to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller may be allowed, viz where (i) the landlord does not accept any rent tendered by the tenant within the time referred to in Section 26 or (ii) refuses or neglects to deliver a receipt referred to in Section 26 or (iii) there is a bonafide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable. Were any of these three circumstances to apply, the tenant would have the option of depositing such rent with the Rent Controller.

Section 26(1) and (2) of the DRC Act, read thus:

"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 Signature Not Verified CM(M) 644/2021 Page 3 of 8 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2022 12:04:16 authorised agent a written receipt for the amount paid to him., signed by the landlord or his authorised agent:

Provided that it shall be open to the tenant to remit the rent to his landlords by postal money order."

6. It is an admitted position, at the bar by learned Counsel on both sides that the respondent-tenant had, in DR 53/2020 and DR 61/2020, for the months of October, 2020 and November, 2020, sought permission to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller only on the ground of bonafide doubt as to the person to whom the rent was payable. The case of the respondent, with respect to these two months, was that it had bonafide doubts as to whether the rent for these months was payable to the petitioner and, on that ground, the respondent sought permission to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller.

7. In the impugned order dated 6th August, 2021, the learned RCT has, in para 51, specifically rejected, after a detailed discussion spanning several pages, the plea of bonafide doubt as urged by the respondent. The concluding finding in para 51 of the impugned order reads thus:

"51. To conclude, it is established that appellant is the owner/Landlady of the property in question by virtue of statutory attornment under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and no formal attornment by the tenant is mandated by law. The tenant is stopped under S. 116 of evidence Act from challenging the title of the owner. The argument raised by the respondent about the doubt about the ownership of the Appellant is without merit."

Signature Not Verified CM(M) 644/2021 Page 4 of 8 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2022 12:04:16

8. Having thus rejected the sole ground on which the respondent sought permission to deposit the rent for the months of October, 2020 and November, 2020 in court, the learned RCT has, nonetheless, granted the said permission on the ground that there was refusal, on the part of the petitioner, to accept the rent tendered by the respondent.

9. It requires consideration as to whether such a finding could sustain, when the only ground urged by the respondent, for the months of October and November, 2020, was that of bonafide doubt which the learned RCT specifically rejected.

10. Apropos the months of December, 2020 to May, 2021, the respondent again urged the ground of bonafide doubt and also urged the ground of refusal, by the petitioner, of the rent tendered by the respondent. Mr. Kamlesh Anand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that, as the payment made by the respondent on 29th October, 2020 for the rent payable for the months of October, 2020 and November, 2020, had been returned, it would amount to a refusal, by the petitioner, of the said payment, justifying permission to the petitioner to deposit the rent for succeeding months with the Rent Controller.

11. One of the contentions urged by Ms. Deepika Marwaha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is that the account into which the respondent purportedly sought to transfer the rent on 29th October, 2020 Signature Not Verified CM(M) 644/2021 Page 5 of 8 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2022 12:04:16 was, within the knowledge of the respondent, a closed account, and that communication to this effect had been sent by the petitioner to the respondent on 24th September, 2020. In the said communication, Ms. Marwaha seeks to point out that the respondent was put on notice that the account would be closed and that, therefore, the rent should be paid by way of cheque. While this aspect would require consideration, there is another aspect which, according to my understanding of Section 27(1), may need deliberation, apropos non-acceptance of rent tendered by the tenant as a ground for seeking permission to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller. Qua this ground, Section 27(1) states that "where the landlord does not accept any rent tendered by the tenant within the time referred to in Section 26... that tenant may deposit such rent with the Controller". Mr. Anand's submission is that, once there is a refusal of rent tendered by the tenant, by the landlord, that refusal operates in perpetuity for the purposes of Section 27(1) and that, for all succeeding months, the tenant has a right to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller.

12. To my mind, the correctness of this submission may be debatable. Section 27(1) insofar as it permits failure to accept, by a landlord, of the rent tendered by the tenant, as a ground to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller, envisages three distinct ingredients to be satisfied by the tenant before such permission is available to it, viz (i) that the rent was tendered by the tenant for the month in question, (ii) the tendering of the rent was within the time referred to in Section 26 and (iii) there was failure on the part of the landlord to accept the rent tendered. Holistically Signature Not Verified CM(M) 644/2021 Page 6 of 8 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2022 12:04:16 read, what Section 27(1) provides in such a circumstance is that the rent which the landlord has so failed to accept may be deposited with the Controller. This, to me, appears to be the plain intendment of the provision, by the use of the words "any rent" read with the words "such rent" in the said provision. In other words, how this clause operates, according to me prima facie, is that if, for a particular month, the tenant tenders the rent within the period envisaged by Section 26, and the landlord refuses to accept that rent, the tenant may deposit such rent with the Rent Controller.

13. Assuming, arguendo, therefore, that the petitioner had not accepted the rent tendered by the respondent on 29th October, 2020, it would be extremely debatable as to whether this could be a ground for the respondent to be permitted to deposit rents for succeeding months with the Rent Controller. As Section 29(1) reads, it appears that, in such a circumstance, all that can be allowed to the respondent would be to deposit, with the Rent Controller, such rent as was refused by the landlord. This interpretation would also harmonise with Section 26(1) which envisages payment of rent on a month to month basis. If, therefore, for a particular month, rent is tendered by the tenant within the time stipulated in Section 26, and the landlord fails to accept such rent, such rent may, under Section 27(1) be deposited, with the Rent Controller.

14. Even if it were to be assumed, therefore, that the petitioner had Signature Not Verified CM(M) 644/2021 Page 7 of 8 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2022 12:04:16 failed to accept the rent tendered by the respondent on 29th October, 2020, for the months of October and November, 2020, it appears questionable as to whether, on that ground, the respondent could be permitted to deposit the rent from December, 2020 to May, 2021, with the Rent Controller, as was sought by the respondent-tenant and as has been rejected by the learned RCT.

15. These thoughts have been conveyed to learned Counsel for the respondent, so that he could cogitate thereon.

16. Re-notify on 8th April, 2022.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J APRIL 6, 2022/kr Signature Not Verified CM(M) 644/2021 Page 8 of 8 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2022 12:04:16

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders