Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar vs Smt. Prem Lata on 30 September, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M.(M) No.1142/2012 and C.M. No.17911/2012 (stay)
% 30th September, 2014
ASHOK KUMAR ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. R. Ravi, Advocate.
VERSUS
SMT. PREM LATA ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kulwanti Swaroop Sharma,
Advocate.
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 orders of the courts below; of the Additional Rent Controller dated 11.4.2012 and the Rent Control Tribunal dated 10.9.2012; by which the defence of the petitioner/tenant stands struck off under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for non-compliance of the order of pendente-lite deposit of rent passed on 9.11.2011.
CM(M) No.1142/2012 Page 1 of 4
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner/tenant in terms of the order dated 9.11.2011 passed under Section 15(1) of the Act was directed to pay rent at Rs.1,650/- per month from 1.7.2007 after giving adjustment of amount already paid, but, petitioner/tenant admittedly did not pay the amount and simply pleaded that non-payment was on account of the sickness of the sister of the petitioner who is said to have died later and consequent financial constraints and hence the defence be not struck off. The fact of the matter is that default persisted even after filing of the application seeking striking off the defence and the default even continues till date and before this Court only an opportunity is prayed for to make compliance of the order of deposit of rent dated 9.11.2011.
3. No doubt, illness in anyone's family is a sad thing, however, there is no law that if a tenant has financial constraints, he need not comply with the orders of deposit of rent passed under Section 15(1) of the Act. This is because surely, the landlords are entitled to the rent which they have to receive for the premises which are owned by them and let out to the tenants, and financial constraints of tenants have never been held by even a single judgment of any Court to be a ground for continuous default in payment of the rent.
CM(M) No.1142/2012 Page 2 of 4
4. Both the courts below have noted that till the time of passing of the impugned orders by them, the order under Section 15(1) of the Act remained uncomplied and which position as stated above continues till date. The Rent Control Tribunal has rightly dealt with this issue by rejecting the stand of the petitioner/tenant in the following words:-
"......In the submissions of the ld. counsel for the appellant, the order passed under section 15(1) could not be complied with on account of sickness of the sister of the appellant, who died later and the financial constraints, thereby. Defaults persisted, even after the filing of the application U/s 15(7). The whole of the arrears of rent, never came to be deposited. It has not happened till now. It is not a blatant default in compliance of the order U/s 15(1)? To my mind, certainly. In 1980 (2) RCR Delhi Cloth & Gen. Co-Ltd. Vs. Hem Chand (Del) 403, it was held as under:-
"7. The first question which has noted to be considered is as to whether the Rent Controller was justified in ordering the striking out of the defence of the tenant. It will be seen, as held by the Supreme Court, that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to extend the time for the compliance of the order under Section 15(1). It is not disputed that the said order under Section 15(1) had not been complied with. There was delay in the payment of the arrears of rent; monthly rent directed to be paid by the said order was also not deposited in time and the first payment of arrears of rent was made only on 15th December 1964. There was persistent default on the part of the tenant the deposit of rent. The Rent Control Tribunal had come to the conclusion that order under Section 15(7) should not have been passed and the delay should have been condoned. This reasoning is not correct. The delay could not condoned. There is no extenuating circumstance which existed in this case. Financial stringency could be no ground for not complying with the order under Section 15(1). I therefore, commence the CM(M) No.1142/2012 Page 3 of 4 conclusion that the Rent Controller was right in striking out the defence of the respondent-tenant."
In view of the foregoing, the inability of the tenant in complying with the order passed under section 15(1) of the DRC Act, on account of distressed financial circumstances, is of no avail to the tenant-appellant. A right having accrued in favour of the landlady- respondent, cannot be allowed to be frustrated in the given facts and circumstances. I therefore, do not see any illegality in the impugned order. Appeal is therefore, dismissed. TCR be returned forthwith. File be consigned to record room."
5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 Ne CM(M) No.1142/2012 Page 4 of 4