Delhi District Court
M/S Cri Limited vs Smt. Raj Rani Mehta (Since Deceased ... on 11 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GIRISH KATHPALIA,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQs)
& RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RCT APPEAL NO. 131/2019
CNR No. DLCT010110952019
M/s CRI LIMITED
2E/26, SWAMI RAM TIRATH NAGAR,
JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI
......APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Smt. RAJ RANI MEHTA (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH
LRs)
a. PRAN MEHTA S/o LATE SHRI R.N. MEHTA
R/o A20, ANAND NIKETAN
NEW DELHI 110021
b. RAM MEHTA
S/o LATE SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA
c. RAJ MEHTA
S/o LATE SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA
d. VIMAL MEHTA
S/o LATE SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA
e. RANI MEHTA
D/o LATE SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA
RESPONDENTS NO. 1(b) TO (e) RESIDING AT
4314, HIGHLAND DRIVE
SHOREVIEW, MN55125, USA
......RESPONDENTS
RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs
RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited
Page 1 of 21 pages
Digitally signed
by GIRISH
GIRISH KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11
14:08:38 +0530
Date of filing :17.08.2019
First date before this court : 19.08.2019
Arguments concluded on :25.03.2023
Date of Decision : 11.04.2023
APPEARANCE : Shri D.K. Jena, counsel for appellant tenant (CRI Limited)
Shri P.P. Ahuja, counsel for respondent landlord (Raj Rani Mehta)
RCT APPEAL NO. 133/2019
CNR No. DLCT010111732019
Smt. RAJ RANI MEHTA (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH
HER LEGAL HEIRS)
1. PRAN MEHTA S/o LATE SHRI R.N. MEHTA
R/o A20, ANAND NIKETAN
NEW DELHI 110021
2. RAM MEHTA
S/o LATE SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA
3. RAJ MEHTA
S/o LATE SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA
4. VIMAL MEHTA
S/o LATE SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA
5. Mrs RANI WESLEY
D/o LATE SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA
APPELLANTS NO. 1 TO 5 C/o
A20, ANAND NIKETAN
NEW DELHI 110021
......APPELLANT
VERSUS
RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs
RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited
Page 2 of 21 pages
Digitally signed
by GIRISH
GIRISH KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11
14:08:52 +0530
1. M/s CRI LIMITED
2E/26, 1st & 2nd FLOOR,
SWAMI RAM TIRATH NAGAR,
JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION
NEW DELHI 110055
2. M/s EMAMI LIMITED
2E/26, SWAMI RAM TIRATH NAGAR,
JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION,
NEW DELHI 110055
3. M/s EMAMI INDUSTRIES LIMITED
2E/26, SWAMI RAM TIRATH NAGAR,
JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI 110055
......RESPONDENTS
Date of filing :19.08.2019
First date before this court : 20.08.2019
Arguments concluded on :25.03.2023
Date of Decision : 11.04.2023
APPEARANCE : Shri P.P. Ahuja, counsel for appellant landlord (Raj Rani Mehta)
Shri D.K. Jena, counsel for respondent tenant (CRI Limited)
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. Order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, thereby allowing the application under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act has been assailed by both sides by way of these appeals under Section 38 of the Act. As such, these appeals are taken up together. For convenience, parties to these appeals are referred to as "landlord" (legal representatives of Smt. Raj Rani Mehta) and RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 3 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11 14:09:04 +0530 "tenant" (M/s CRI Limited). I heard learned counsel for both sides, who took me through trial court records.
2. Briefly stated, circumstances leading to these appeals are as follows.
2.1 By way of order dated 16.07.2019, impugned in these appeals, application of the landlord under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was allowed, directing the tenant to pay to the landlord arrears of enhanced rent @ Rs. 287.50 per month with effect from 01.05.1994 to 31.03.2015 alongwith simple interest @15% per annum from the date when the enhanced rent became due; and further directing the tenant to pay the arrears of enhanced rent @ Rs. 315.70 (Rs. 3478.70 - Rs. 3163.00) with effect from 01.04.2015; further directing the tenant to pay the said arrears of enhanced rent within 30 days and to pay the future rent @ Rs. 3478.70 per month.
2.2 The case set up by the landlord in application under Section 15(1) of the Act before the learned Additional Rent Controller was as follows. After last increase, the tenant started paying rent @ Rs. 2875/ per month with effect from 01.12.1989. A notice dated 26.03.1994 was served on the tenant to which reply dated 15.04.1994 was sent but rent was not increased; according to the landlord, by virtue of notice dated 26.03.1994 rent was increased from Rs. 2875/ per month to Rs. 3162.50 per month with effect from RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 4 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11 14:09:17 +0530 May 1994, but the tenant continued to pay rent @ Rs. 2875/ per month. Another notice dated 14.12.1995 was served on the tenant to increase the rent, which was responded by reply dated 30.01.1996 but rent was not increased. Yet another notice dated 16.02.2015 was served on the tenant to increase rent from Rs. 3162.50 to Rs. 3478.70 with effect from 01.04.2015, to which the tenant replied vide reply dated 10.03.2015. For the months of April and May 2015, the tenant paid rent @ Rs. 3163/ per month. Therefore, under Section 15(1) of the Act, the landlord prayed that the tenant be directed to pay increased rent @ Rs. 3162.50 with effect from 01.05.1994 till 31.03.2015 after deducting the rent paid @ Rs. 2875/ per month, thereby paying the outstanding amount of Rs. 287.50 per month for the period from 01.05.1994 till 31.03.2015; and that the tenant be further directed to pay the increased rent @ Rs. 3478.70 with effect from 01.04.2015 after deducting the amount paid for the said period.
2.3 In reply to the application under Section 15(1) of the Act, the tenant pleaded as follows. After receiving the notice dated 16.02.2015, rent is being paid @ Rs.3163/ per month with effect from 01.04.2015. The claim of the landlord regarding increase of rent to Rs. 3162/ per month is an afterthought as the landlord had made a statement before the court on 18.10.2005 that rent would be accepted @ Rs. 2875/ per month till disposal of the case. Further, the increase of rent on 01.12.1989 was contrary to the provisions of law insofar as the appellant tenant agreed to increase the rent by 15% RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 5 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11 14:09:32 +0530 with the understanding that there would be no further increase in the rent. The landlord continued to accept the rent @ Rs. 2875/ per month and continued to issue rent receipts without any demur.
2.4 The Additional Rent Controller allowed the application under Section 15(1) of the Act with the following observations. Admittedly, rent was increased to Rs. 2875/ with effect from 01.12.1989. Also, admittedly, notice dated 26.03.1994 was sent by the landlord and was served on the tenant for increase of rent.
However, vide notice dated 26.03.1994, the landlord claimed increase of rent by 15%, that too with retrospective effect, and the tenant rightly claimed in the reply dated 15.04.1994 that Section 6A of the Delhi Rent Control Act does not allow increase of rent by 15% and by retrospective effect. At the same time, for these flaws, the notice dated 26.03.1994 does not become invalid in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Deepak Nijhawan vs. R.N. Abrol, 226 (2016) DLT 188 to the effect that the amount of increase and the date from which increase can be claimed would be as laid down in the Delhi Rent Control Act. Therefore, the landlord is entitled to increase of rent by 10% with effect from 01.05.1994, i.e. Rs. 3162.50 per month with effect from 01.05.1994. Further admittedly, notice dated 16.02.2015 also was served on the tenant, so the landlord is entitled to increase of rent by 10% with effect from 01.04.2015, i.e. Rs. 3478.70 per month with effect from 01.04.2015. Plea of the tenant that parties had agreed that there RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 6 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11 14:09:46 +0530 would never be increase in rent is sham. Since there was default in payment of rent at enhanced rate, the landlord is entitled to receive interest @ 15% per annum from the date on which payment of the enhanced rent was due.
2.5 Hence, the present appeals.
3. Learned counsel for the landlord as well as the tenant assailed the impugned order, both contending that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
3.1 Learned counsel for tenant M/s CRI contended and argued as follows. The judgment in the case of Deepak Nijhawan (supra) was wrongly relied upon by the Additional Rent Controller insofar as by virtue of Section 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, for revision of the rent under Section 6A of the Act, a notice is a mandatory requirement, so where the notice itself is defective, rent cannot be enhanced. The enhancement of rent retrospectively is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Under Section 15 (1) of the Act, the admitted rate of rent @ Rs. 2875/ per month could not be increased with effect from 01.05.1994 since the same has become time barred. Rent enhancement notice dated 26.03.1994 issued by the landlord was bad in law because it sought to increase the rent by 15% while Section 6A of the Act permits increase by only 10%, and because the rate of rent in the notice was wrongly mentioned as Rs. 2990/ RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 7 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11 14:09:57 +0530 while the correct rate of rent was Rs. 2875/ per month, and because the notice sought to claim rent enhancement with retrospective effect. Learned counsel for tenant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kamala Bakshi vs Khairati Lal, (2000) 3 SCC 681 in support of his contention that the learned Additional Rent Controller had no power to award arrears of rent for the period from the year 1994, so the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Placing reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases titled National Coop Consumer vs Jwala Pershad Ashok Kumar, AIR 1998 Delhi 308; and Thakur Rangji Maharaj Trust vs AJ Printers, CS (OS) 2813/2011 decided on 05.03.2014, learned counsel for tenant contended that the Act does not approve of increase in rent with retrospective effect.
3.2 On the other hand, learned counsel for landlord LRs of Smt. Raj Rani argued as follows. In view of the existing legal position, it is the bounden duty of the Additional Rent Controller to pass an order under Section 15(1) of the Act without waiting for a formal application from the landlord, so in the year 1997 itself when the eviction petition was filed, the learned Additional Rent Controller ought to have passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Act. Once the tenant had deposited rent in compliance with the impugned order, the tenant was barred from pleading the ground of time barred rent.
Since there is no limitation period prescribed for filing a petition under Section 14 of the Act, there can be no limitation period for RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 8 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11 14:10:07 +0530 filing an application under Section 15(1) of the Act and accordingly, the plea of time barred rent is liable to be discarded. Since the eviction petition was filed in the year 1997, the arrears of rent of past three years could be validly directed to be paid even in the year 2019. Further, the landlord had also issued notices dated 28.03.2018 and 12.07.2018, to which the tenant also sent replies dated 26.04.2018 and 25.07.2018 but the learned Additional Rent Controller due to oversight missed those notices. Learned counsel for the landlord contended that in view of the said two notices, which skipped the attention of learned Additional Rent Controller, the enhancement of monthly rent ought to have been from Rs. 3478.70 to Rs. 3826.62 with effect from 01.05.2018 after service of notice dated 28.03.2018 under Section 6A of the Act and to that extent, the impugned order under Section 15(1) of the Act is not sustainable. Learned counsel for landlord referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jagan Nath vs Ram Kishan Dass, AIR 1985 SC 265 in support of his argument that it is obligatory upon the Rent Controller to pass an order under Section 15(1) of the Act in every proceedings under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Subhash Chander vs Rehmat Ullah, ILR 1973 Delhi 181, learned counsel for landlord argued that the Limitation Act does not apply to the court of Rent Controller.
RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 9 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11 14:10:24 +0530 3.3 In rebuttal arguments, it was argued by learned counsel for tenant that the learned Additional Rent Controller correctly ignored the notice dated 28.03.2018 because the same was issued during pendency of the application under Section 15(1) of the Act, which application had been filed in the year 2015.
4. Thus, the crux of arguments of tenant, assailing the order under Section 15(1) of the Act is that by way of the impugned order in the year 2019, the Additional Rent Controller could not have awarded rent enhancement from the year 1994 onwards; and that enhancement of rent under Section 6A of the Act could not come into play retrospectively. On the other hand, crux of the arguments of landlord assailing the impugned order is that the eviction petition having been filed in the year 1997, it was the bounden duty of the learned Additional Rent Controller to pass an order under Section 15(1) of the Act immediately upon filing of written statement and that would have covered the arrears of rent from 1994 onwards; and that the learned Additional Rent Controller due to oversight missed the notice dated 28.03.2018, so the increased rent ought to have been @ Rs. 3826.62 per month with effect from 01.05.2018.
5. At this stage it would be apposite to briefly traverse through the judicial precedents cited by both sides.
5.1 In the case of Deepak Nijhawan (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held thus :
RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 10 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11 14:10:38 +0530 "20. A reading of Section 6A shows that, statutorily, the rent of any premises covered by the Act may be increased by 10% every three years. There are two facets of Section 6A. First that the rent may be increased by 10%, and second that the said increase can take place every three years. Section 8, in effect, provides that to trigger the increase of rent in terms of Section 6A, a landlord who wishes to so increase the rent, is required to convey his intention to make the increase by giving a notice of his intention to the tenant.
It also provides that upon service of the notice conveying his intention to increase the rent, "insofar as such increase is lawful under this Act", the increased rent shall be due and recoverable in respect of the period of tenancy after the expiry of thirty days from the date on which such notice is given. Therefore, even if the landlord issues a notice conveying his intention to increase the rent: (i) in excess of what is lawful under the Act, or (ii) from a date prior to when it is lawful to so increase the rent under the Act, the increase shall take place only to the extent and from the date, that is lawful under the Act.
.....
.....
23. A plain reading of Section 8, in my view, does not put any fetters on the right of the landlord to issue a notice under the said provision, read with Section 6A, in advance of the date when the rent could become statutorily revisable by 10% under Section 6A of the Act. There is nothing to suggest in the said provision that if a notice is given in advance, such that the period of thirty days after the issuance of notice expires prior to the rent becoming revisable under Section 6A, such notice would not take effect from the date when the rent becomes revisable by resort to Section 6A of the Act.
24. Section 8, in essence, requires that the landlord should convey his intention to the tenant that he desires to increase the rent. The purpose of the said notice is merely to compel the tenant to start paying the increased rent in terms of Section 6A from the date it is so payable, and to the extent that it is so payable. If, the increase by 10% is due in terms of Section 6A, on RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 11 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11 14:10:51 +0530 the expiry of thirty days from the date when the notice is given, the tenant is bound to pay the increased rent on such expiry of thirty days. If, however, on expiry of the said period of thirty days from the date of the notice the rent is not revisable under Section 6A because the previous revision took place less than three years ago, or the rent was fixed less than three years ago, the tenant is not bound to revise the rent on the date when the period of thirty days expires from the date of the notice. But when he already has notice of the intention of the landlord to increase the rent, he cannot ignore this communication of the intention of the landlord, and not pay the increased rent, atleast, on the date that the said increase is legally enforceable. It is for this reason that Section 8 uses the expression "... and insofar as such increase is lawful under this Act ...". What is lawful increase under the Act is the increase of 10% over the previous rent every three years. Thus, even if a landlord were to issue a notice under Section 8 demanding the higher increase let say 20% increase, and before the expiry of three years of the previous revision of rent let say on the expiry of two years, the increase shall be due and recoverable only to the extent of 10%, and only on the expiry of three years of the previous revision. A notice sent in advance, or for seeking an increase in excess of 10% would, therefore, have to be read as one seeking increase in rent which is lawful under the Act, i.e. it has to be read as a notice for increase of rent by 10% and as a notice demanding increase of rent from the date of expiry of three years from the previous revision. It cannot be ignored or rendered ineffective merely on account of being issued somewhat in advance of the date when the revision of rent is due.
.....
....
....
30. Thus, the Supreme Court opined that a notice of demand issued by the landlord must be read in a commonsense way, bearing in mind how such notices RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 12 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2023.04.11 14:11:06 +0530 are understood by ordinary people. It was the conduct of the landlord in issuing the notice whereby he communicated his intention to seek increase of rent under Section 6A, which is relevant. An inaccuracy with regard to the amount of increase that the appellant/ landlord was entitled to, or about the date from which the said increase could be claimed, does not affect the validity of the notice, the purpose of which is only to communicate the intention of the landlord to the tenant that he demands increase of rent from the date, which is lawful under the Act".
(emphasis supplied) 5.2 The judgment in the case of Jagan Nath (supra) was read to the limited extent by learned counsel for landlord as follows :
"We are of the opinion that the appellant's contention is preferable to that of the respondents, having regard to the language of section 14(2) of the Act and of the proviso to that section. Putting it briefly, that section provides that no order for the recovery of possession of any premises can be made on the ground that the tenant has committed default in the payment of rent, if he pays or deposits the rent in accordance with the provisions of section 15. The benefit which the tenant obtains under section 14(2) is the avoidance of the decree for possession. Though he had committed default in the payment of rent, no decree for possession can be passed against him This benefit accrues to the tenant by reason of the fact that he has complied with the order passed by the Controller under section 15 of the Act. The passing of an order under section 15 is not a benefit which accrues to the tenant under section 14(2). It is obligatory upon the Controller to pass an order under section 15(1) in every proceeding for the recovery of possession on the ground specified in section 14(1)(a), that is, on the ground that the tenant has committed default in the payment of rent. That is a facility which the law obliges the Controller to give to the tenant under section 15. It is through the medium of that facility that the tenant obtains the benefit under section RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 13 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11 14:11:17 +0530 14(2). And, that benefit consists in the acquisition of an immunity against the passing of an order of possession on the ground of default in the payment of rent".
5.3 In the case of Kamala Bakshi (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for tenant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India elaborated the meaning of the expression "legally recoverable arrears of rent" in Section 14(1)(a) of the Act and held that where the claim of the landlord for recovery of arrears of rent was not enforceable in a court of law for having become barred by limitation, the amount ceases to be "legally recoverable" and in such case the landlord would be able to recover only that much of the arrears of rent for which suit in a court of law could be filed. In the said case, the landlord had issued demand notice to the tenant in respect of rent arrears for the period from 28.03.1960 to 28.07.1992 and the tenant by paying the rent due for the three years preceding 01.09.1992 denied the liability to pay the arrears for the earlier period, so landlord filed eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act; the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition, holding that the tenant had paid the rent arrears for the period of three years immediately preceding the demand notice and the High Court dismissed the landlord's revision petition.
5.4 In the case of Subhash Chander (supra), one of the questions involved was as to whether the Limitation Act applies to the proceedings before the Rent Controller. Referring to various RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 14 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11 14:11:28 +0530 judicial precedents, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that though the Rent Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act may have some of the trappings of a court, but it is not a court stricto sensu and so not within the meaning of the Limitation Act. The Hon'ble Division Bench rejected the argument that in view of Section 37 of the Act, statute of limitation being part of procedural law must apply to the Rent Controller and held that had the Legislature intended application of the Limitation Act to the Rent Controller, it would have clearly said so.
5.5 In the case of National Coop. Consumer (supra), the basic contention raised by the tenant was that the amendment of the Act whereby Section 6A was inserted on 01.12.1988 is prospective in nature in the sense that right to enhance the agreed rent by 10% would accrue to the landlord only three years after the provision coming force i.e. with effect from 01.12.1991. It is in this context that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that Section 6A cannot be said to be retrospective simply for the reason that if a party wants to do immediately give effect to it, reliance is to be placed on antecedent to its passing; that the provision does not create liability for the past; and that the liability to pay increased rent is only after the statute came into force.
5.6 In the case of Thakur Rangji Maharaj (supra), during pendency of certain proceedings under the Act, the landlord vide RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 15 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11 14:11:39 +0530 notice dated 09.11.2010 invoked Section 6A read with Section 8 of the Act, notifying the tenant that the revised rent from 01.01.2007 would be Rs. 4,425/ per month and called upon the tenant to pay the same and thereafter filed a civil suit for recovery of possession, claiming that the protection under the Act was not available to the tenant. The question before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was as to whether such notice has to be given every three years or where the landlord even if has not had the rent increased every three years, is entitled to at any point of time give a notice of cumulative increase for several period of three years each in the past. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the right to have the rent increased has to be exercised every three years and to read the same as at the rate of 10% every three year would be violating the legislative intent and language.
6. Falling back to the present case, claim of the learned counsel for tenant to the effect that on 18.10.2005, the landlord had made a statement that he would receive monthly rent at the rate of Rs 2,875/ till disposal of the proceedings is contrary to record. What was stated by Shri Pran Nath Mehta (one of the legal representatives of the landlord Smt. Raj Rani Mehta) on 18.10.2005 in the course of miscellaneous proceedings bearing No. M33/2002 was that the landlord is ready to accept the rent offered by the tenant company without prejudice to rights and contentions of the landlord to claim rent at the rate of Rs. 3,479/ per month with effect from 01.12.1995 RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 16 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11 14:11:49 +0530 and as also prayed in the eviction petition. There was no statement of the landlord that rent at the rate of Rs. 2,875/ per month was acceptable till disposal of the case, as alleged on behalf of the tenant.
7. On the other hand, contention of learned counsel for landlord to the effect that the learned Additional Rent Controller "due to oversight" missed notice dated 28.03.2018, so increased rent ought to have been at the rate of Rs. 3,826.62 per month with effect from 01.05.2018 and consequently, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, also is not in consonance with the record. The said notice dated 28.03.2018 was not even taken on record by the learned Additional Rent Controller. According to the trial court record, the said notice dated 28.03.2018 was sought to be placed on record by way of application dated 06.09.2018 under Order XI Rule 14 and Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, which application was dismissed on 04.11.2020. Thence, on 16.07.2019 when the impugned order was passed, the said notice dated 28.03.2018 was not even on record, so it is not a case of oversight by the learned Additional Rent Controller.
8. Merely because in notice dated 26.03.1994, the landlord demanded increase of rent by 15% and with retrospective effect, the said notice cannot be discarded in view of law laid by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Deepak Nijhawan (supra), according to which, the extent of increase in rent and the date from which rent can be increased has to be in accordance with the provisions under RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 17 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11 14:12:00 +0530 the Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said case clearly laid down that even if the landlord issues a notice conveying his intention to increase the rent in excess of what is lawful under the Act or from the date prior to when it is lawful to increase the rent under the Act, the increase shall take place only to the extent and from the date, which is lawful under the Act.
9. Then comes the most vital part of these appeals. As mentioned above, according to the tenant the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law because in the year 2019, the learned Additional Rent Controller could not have directed payment of arrears of enhanced rent for the period from the year 1994 onwards in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kamala Bakshi (supra). On the other hand, according to the landlord, the law of limitation does not even apply to the proceedings pending before the Rent Controller, as laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Subhash Chander (supra).
10. Looking at it cursorily, the said two judgments might appear contradictory to each other. But that is not so. Apart from the fact that the law laid down in the case of Kamala Bakshi (supra) being from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India must prevail over law down by any High Court across the country, in my view both judgments are operating in different spheres. In Kamala Bakshi (supra) decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the year RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 18 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11 14:12:13 +0530 2000, the fulcrum was the interpretation to be given to the expression "legally recoverable arrears of rent" in the proceedings under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, whereas in Subhash Chander (supra) decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the year 1972, that was not so. In Subhash Chander (supra) the issue was applicability of law of limitation qua application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC filed before the Rent Controller. Since Section 15(1) of the Act also specifically stipulates that the amount to be calculated has to be "for the period for which arrears of the rent were legally recoverable from the tenant", it is the law laid down in the case of Kamala Bakshi (supra) that is relevant for present purpose.
11. Coming to the argument of learned counsel for landlord that it was obligatory for the Rent Controller to pass order under Section 15(1) of the Act immediately upon filing of the eviction petition, the judgment in the case of Jagan Nath (supra) does not hold that it is obligatory for the Rent Controller to pass an order under Section 15(1) of the Act even without any application from the landlord. In the said case, the landlord filed an eviction petition on ground of nonpayment of rent and after the application under Section 15(1) of the Act was allowed, the landlord withdrew the eviction petition on the ground that he had not issued the legal notice of rent demand. In the subsequently filed eviction petition also the landlord filed an application under Section 15(1) of the Act but the same was dismissed by the Rent Controller holding that benefit under RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 19 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date:
2023.04.11 14:12:24 +0530 Section 15(1) had already been granted in the earlier petition so in view of proviso to Section 14(2) of the Act, the tenant could not claim the benefit once again. The Rent Controller passed eviction order. It is under these circumstances that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that it was obligatory for the Rent Controller to pass an order under Section 15(1) of the Act.
12. In the present case, the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act was filed on 14.05.1997 but the application under Section 15(1) of the Act was filed by the landlord on 21.05.2015. In view of the aforesaid, I am unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel for landlord that in the year 1997 itself, without there even being an application under Section 15(1) of the Act, the learned Additional Rent Controller was under a duty to pass an order under Section 15(1) of the Act. In view of legal position discussed above, while adjudicating the application under Section 15(1) of the Act, what the learned Additional Rent Controller was to examine was "the period for which arrears of rent were legally recoverable from the tenant". And that period starting from the year 2015 could not be stretched back to the year 1994, which was done in the impugned order. That infirmity in the impugned order would make it not sustainable in the eyes of law.
13. In view of above discussion, I am unable to uphold the impugned order, so the same is set aside and the appeal RCT No. RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 20 of 21 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2023.04.11 14:12:37 +0530 131/2019 filed on behalf of tenant is allowed. However, as discussed above, the ground on which the impugned order was assailed in appeal RCT No.133/2019 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, so the appeal RCT No. 133/2019 filed on behalf of landlord is dismissed.
14. Trial court record be sent back alongwith copy of this common judgment and the appeal files be consigned to records, leaving the parties bear their own costs.
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH Date: Announced in the open court KATHPALIA 2023.04.11 on this 11th day of April, 2023 14:12:49 +0530 (GIRISH KATHPALIA) Principal District & Sessions Judge (HQs) Rent Control Tribunal (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi RCT No. 131/2019 M/s CRI Limited vs Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LRs RCT No. 133/2019 Raj Rani Mehta (since deceased) through LR vs M/s CRI Limited Page 21 of 21 pages