Delhi District Court
Baljit Singh vs Smt. Shakuntla @ Rambati on 24 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST : SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI.
RCT ARCT NO. 1151/2016 (Old No. 25/2015)
BALJIT SINGH
S/O SHRI MANAGAT SINGH
R/O VILLAGE KHERKA P.O. DUTT NAGAR
DISTT. BAGHPAT (U.P.)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. SMT. SHAKUNTLA @ RAMBATI
W/O LATE SH. ASA RAM
2. SH. SURINDER
S/O LATE SH. ASA RAM
3. SH. DINESH
S/O LATE SH. ASA RAM
ALL R/O 11/328 (FIRST FLOOR)
JJ COLONY, GARHI, LAJPAT NAGAR
NEW DELHI110024.
...RESPONDENTS
Date of filing : 04.11.2015
First date before this court : 05.11.2015
Date of Decision : 24.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1. An appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control RCT ARCT No. 1151/2016 Page 1 of 16 pages Baljit Singh vs Shakuntala @ Rambati & Ors.
Act (hereinafter referred as "the Act") has been filed against the judgment dated 27.08.2015 vide which the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) read with Section 14 (2) of the Act filed by the appellant / landlord has been dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant who is the owner / landlord of the property bearing No. 11/328, First Floor, JJ Colony, Garhi, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi had rented out the suit premises to Shri Asa Ram. The tenancy of Shri Asa Ram was terminated vide notice dated 24.09.1983 and 24.10.1983. After the demise of the original tenant Asa Ram, respondent no. 1 being his wife became the tenant. However, in order to avoid any technical objection, respondents no. 2 and 3, who are the sons of Asa Ram have also been impleaded as respondents.
3. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that an eviction petition bearing No. 27/84 titled Baljit Singh vs Asa Ram had been filed under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act against Asa Ram and the same was decided vide judgment dated 20.02.1985 and the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act was given to the respondents. Again, they defaulted and were in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.12.1999. The respondent was in default in payment of rent w.e.f. 01.12.1999 to 28.02.2005 in the sum of Rs.3,811.50 and in the sum of RCT ARCT No. 1151/2016 Page 2 of 16 pages Baljit Singh vs Shakuntala @ Rambati & Ors.
Rs.7,000/ from March, 2005 since the rent had been enhanced to Rs.1,000/ per month w.e.f. 01.03.2005 vide notice dated 01.02.2005 and the respondent was also liable to pay interest @ 15% per annum. It is submitted that despite service of legal notice dated 01.02.2005 which was duly served through registered A. D., the respondents failed to deposit the arrears or rent and thus, the appellant was entitled to a decree of eviction. However, the petition has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 27.08.2015.
4. The judgment is assailed on the grounds that there was no evidence to show the payment of rent from the period 1999 till 2003. Furthermore, in compliance of the notice dated 01.02.2005, no rent has been deposited in the court, even if it was not received by the appellant. There is no evidence led by the respondents that they had deposited the rent for the period from 1999 to 2003. Hence, the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act could not have been given to the appellant and the petition has been wrongly dismissed.
5. The respondents in their reply have submitted that the impugned judgment is well reasoned and is based on correct and true facts available on record and there is no ground for setting aside the impugned judgment. It has also been explained that aside from the present eviction petition, the appellant had filed an eviction RCT ARCT No. 1151/2016 Page 3 of 16 pages Baljit Singh vs Shakuntala @ Rambati & Ors.
petition bearing E 41/80 under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act on 25.01.1980, but the same has been dismissed by the then learned Additional Rent Controller vide his judgment dated 02.12.1983. The revision petition bearing CR No. 84/84 which was filed on 23.01.1984 against the said judgment, had also been dismissed, by observing that there was no bona fide requirement for the suit premises.
6. The respondents have further explained that another eviction petition bearing No. 27/84 under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act was filed by the appellant on 04.01.1984 claiming arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.10.1975. The order under Section 15 (1) of the Act was made and the then tenant Asa Ram deposited the rent for three years preceding 09.09.1983. Final order dated 20.02.1985 was made by the then learned Additional Rent Controller modifying the previous order directing Asa Ram to deposit arrears of rent w.e.f. 06.01.1983 at the rate of Rs.55/ per month. The said order was also complied and the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act was given to Shri Asa Ram.
7. It is further submitted that in November 1987, appellant filed another eviction petition bearing E 353/87 under Section 14(1)
(a) read with Section 14(2) of the Act but the same was dismissed RCT ARCT No. 1151/2016 Page 4 of 16 pages Baljit Singh vs Shakuntala @ Rambati & Ors.
by learned Additional Rent Controller vide judgment dated 19.10.1994 by observing that there was no default on the part of Asa Ram, the tenant. It is further explained that Asa Ram had deposited the rent up to 31.10.1984 and had tendered the rent for subsequent months but the same was refused by the appellant and the same was deposited in the court of learned Rent Controller till 31.03.1985. Again, on refusal by the appellant, the rent for the period 01.04.1995 to 31.08.1996 was deposited in the court.
8. The respondents again received a notice dated 08.07.2005 on behalf of the appellant pursuant to which respondents tendered the rent amounting to Rs.2,178/ at the rate of Rs.60.50 per month on 23.07.2005 but the same was refused by the appellant. The respondents again on 06.08.2005, remitted the money order of Rs.3,178/ which included Rs.1,000/ as interest but the same was again refused. The respondents again tendered the rent in the sum of Rs.3,690/ for the period from 03.10.2002 to 30.09.2007 as per order dated 24.08.2007 in eviction petition No. 605/06 and the rent was deposited in the court on 05.09.2007. The respondents have asserted that they have been depositing the rent every month regularly from October, 2007 to October, 2008 in the court and the copies of the challans have been placed on record. It is submitted that the rent from time to time up to December, 2014 have been deposited and there has never been any default on the part of the RCT ARCT No. 1151/2016 Page 5 of 16 pages Baljit Singh vs Shakuntala @ Rambati & Ors.
respondents. The impugned judgment dated 27.08.2015 is reasonable and is based on correct facts and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. Written submissions have been filed by both the parties.
10. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. My observations are as under :
11. It is not in dispute that in an earlier eviction petition bearing No. 27/84, benefit under Section 14 (2) has been given to the respondent Asa Ram predecessor in interest of the present respondents, vide judgment dated 20.02.1985. This is the petition for second default in payment of rent. The appellant has asserted that respondents defaulted in payment of rent since 01.12.1999 till 28.02.2005 amounting to Rs.3,811.50 and again in the sum of Rs.7,000/ from March, 2005 till 05.10.2005 @ Rs.1,000/ per month on which date the petition was filed. It is asserted that the original rate of rent was Rs.60.50 per month but the same was enhanced to Rs.1,000/ per month vide notice dated 01.02.2005 sent through registered post and courier but the same were unserved. He again sent legal notice dated 08.07.2005 which was duly served vide RCT ARCT No. 1151/2016 Page 6 of 16 pages Baljit Singh vs Shakuntala @ Rambati & Ors.
registered post despite which the arrears of rent were not paid and hence, the eviction petition was filed.
12. The respondents in their reply had claimed that the rate of rent was Rs.55/ per month and it could not have been enhanced to R.1,000/ per month vide notice dated 01.03.2005. It was further explained that the respondents had been paying the rent directly to the appellant through money order and on his refusal, had been depositing the same in the court of learned Additional Rent Controller. Immediately on receiving the notice dated 08.07.2005, the legal recoverable arrears of rent for past three years at the admitted rate of Rs.60.50 per month amounting to Rs.2,178/ were tendered through money order, but the same were refused. The respondents again tendered a sum of Rs.3,178/ which included Rs.1,000/ towards the interest on 06.08.2005 but the same was also refused. The respondents have proved the money order receipts as Ex.RW1/10 to Ex.RW1/14 and also the money order receipt Ex.RW1/16 vide which the rent after receipt of legal notice was tendered but was refused. The challan receipts are Ex.RW1/17 to Ex.RW1/39 in regard to the rent, that have been deposited in the court from time to time pursuant to the orders of the court under Section 15(1) of the Act, dated 24.08.2007.
RCT ARCT No. 1151/2016 Page 7 of 16 pages Baljit Singh vs Shakuntala @ Rambati & Ors.
13. The only legal point for consideration in the present appeal is whether the tender of the arrears of three consecutive months immediately prior to legal notice and refusal to accept the same by landlord would be sufficient compliance of legal notice thereby entitling the tenant to the protection of section 14 (2) of the Act.
14. The respondents themselves admitted that they had tendered the arrears of rent pursuant to legal notice dated 08.07.2005 for the legally recoverable period of three years immediately preceding the service of legal notice along with interest @ 15% per annum in the sum of Rs.3,178/. It is further the testimony of the respondent no. 1 that they had tendered the rent vide money order receipt Ex.RW1/16 but the same was refused by the appellant / landlord.
15. Clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 14 provides for eviction of a tenant on the ground of non payment of legally recoverable payment of rent within two months of service of legal notice. However, Section 14 (2) provides that no order of eviction shall be made if the tenants make payment or deposit the rent as required by Section 15. However, the proviso to Section 14 (2) provides that no tenant shall be entitled to benefit under this sub RCT ARCT No. 1151/2016 Page 8 of 16 pages Baljit Singh vs Shakuntala @ Rambati & Ors.
section if, he has already obtained the benefit once in respect of the said premises and again makes a default in the payment of rent of those premises for three consecutive months.
16. In the case of Sant Ram vs Janki Parshad 2000 SCC OnLine Del 202, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that Section 14 of the Act gives protection to the tenants against eviction who cannot be evicted except on the grounds that are specified therein.
17. In the case Manmohan Chawla vs Jaswant Singh 1969 DLT 375, V. S. Deshpande, J. (as he then was) held that the proviso to Section 14(2) had been added by the Legislature because it felt that there must be some limit to the remedy available to the tenant and he should not be allowed the benefit of depositing the arrears of rent and defeating the eviction proceedings adinfinitum. It was observed that the said proviso was in fact, a proviso to both Section 14(2) as well as to the relevant provisions of Section 15, Subsections (1), (3) and (6). This judgment was approved by the Apex Court in M. M. Chawla vs J. S. Sethi 1970 (1) SCC 14.
18. What would amount to arrears of rent as envisaged under Clause (a) has been explained in Smt. Prakash Mehra vs K. L. Malhotra AIR 1989 SC 1652 wherein it had been explained that RCT ARCT No. 1151/2016 Page 9 of 16 pages Baljit Singh vs Shakuntala @ Rambati & Ors.
the arrears under Section 14(1)(a) are those demanded by the notice for payment of arrears of rent. The arrears due cannot be extended to rent which has fallen due after service of the notice of demand. Consequently, what has to be three consecutive defaults on the part of the appellant is the period prior to the notice of demand and it is non payment of this rent within two months of service of legal notice in order to deny the benefit under Section 14(2) to the tenant.
19. In Mst. Saeedan vs Shri Jawala Pershad, 1978 (1) RGR 31, it was observed that the failure to pay the entire arrears of rent within two months of receipt of notice becomes a cause of action for eviction which would not be obliterated and would continue to exist till the date of the filing of eviction petition and the delayed payment on the part of the tenant does not wipe off the cause of action and would not defeat the petition for eviction, excepting, perhaps on the grounds of waiver and estoppel. In that case, the tenant had paid the rent before the institution of proceedings under Section 14(1)(a) but the benefit of Section 14(2) was still not granted as the payment was made after two months of service of legal notice when the cause of action had already accrued.
20. In Ashok Kumar vs Ram Gopal 22 (1982) DLT 188, Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that the cause of action accrues and the provision of proviso to Section 14(2) becomes applicable RCT ARCT No. 1151/2016 Page 10 of 16 pages Baljit Singh vs Shakuntala @ Rambati & Ors.
the moment there is a default committed on the part of the tenant in not making the payment pursuant to the receipt of the notice of demand. If the entire arrears of rent are not paid within two months of receipt of notice, then the tenant becomes liable for eviction.
21. Admittedly, in the present case after the legally recoverable rent of three years up to 08.07.2005, date of legal notice along with interest amounting to Rs.3,178/ was tendered vide money order, receipt of which is Ex.RW1/6. The respondent would have become entitled to benefit of Section 14 (2) if the rent was accepted by the landlord in response to the legal notice as held in above judgment. But admittedly, the money order was refused to be accepted by the landlord.
22. The question thus, to be considered is whether the responsibility of the tenant came to an end once he tendered the rent by way of money order and the same was refused by the landlord. The Rent Act contains a complete Code in this regard. Section 26 of the Act provides for deposit of rent in case the rent is refused by the landlord. The procedure to be followed is defined under Section 27 of the Act.
23. In Atma Ram vs Shakuntla Rani (2005) 7 SCC 211, the Apex Court observed as under :
RCT ARCT No. 1151/2016 Page 11 of 16 pages Baljit Singh vs Shakuntala @ Rambati & Ors.
"19. It will thus appear that this Court has consistently taken the view that in the rent control legislations if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act. If any condition precedent is to be fulfilled before the benefit can be claimed, he must strictly comply with that condition. If he fails to do so he cannot take advantage of the benefit conferred by such a provision."
24. It was further noted in Atma Ram (supra) that the Act prescribes what is to be done by the tenant if landlord does not accept rent tendered by him within a specified period. He is required to deposit the rent in the court under Section 27 of the Act. In view of specific provision, it would not be open to a tenant to report to any other procedure. If the rent is deposited elsewhere and not under Section 27 it shall not be treated as valid payment / tender of arrears of rent and tenant shall be held in default.
25. In E. Palanisamy vs Palanisamy (2003) 1 SCC 123 while considering similar provisions under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, it was observed that where landlord refuses to accept the rent tendered by money order, the RCT ARCT No. 1151/2016 Page 12 of 16 pages Baljit Singh vs Shakuntala @ Rambati & Ors.
tenant is entitled to deposit rent before the Rent Controller. It was further observed that benefits conferred on the tenant can be enjoyed only by strict compliance with the statutory provisions. Equitable consideration has no place in such matters. A strict compliance with statue is necessary. The tenant cannot straight away jump to the last step i.e. deposit rent in court. The last step can only be after the earlier steps have been taken by the tenant. Similar view was taken in Kuldeep Singh vs Ganpat Lal (1996) 7 SCC 243 and M. Bhaskar vs Venkatarama Naidu (1996) 6 SCC 228.
26. The Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Goel & Others Vs. Kishan Chand (2009) 7 SCC referred to above said judgments and explained that it is the responsibility/ liability of the tenant to comply with the demand notice under Section 14(1)(a) and it does not end by tender or refusal. The tenant must necessarily follow the procedure under the Act of deposit of rent under Section 27 in case of refusal of rent by the landlord and only in case of such deposit, the eviction of the tenant cannot be effected.
27. It was further observed that considering the object of the Act and the intention of the legislature, the word "may" occurring in Section 27 of the Act must be considered as a mandatory provision and not a directory provision. The word RCT ARCT No. 1151/2016 Page 13 of 16 pages Baljit Singh vs Shakuntala @ Rambati & Ors.
"may" as used by the legislature connotes that the provision must be strictly followed as special protection has been given to the tenant from eviction. Such a cannon of construction is certainly warranted because otherwise, the intention of the legislature would be defeated and the class of landlords for whom the beneficial provision has been made for the recovery of possession of tenants would stand deprived of it.
28. The facts involved in Sarla Goel (supra) were in pari materia as in the present case. In the said case, the tenant in response to legal notice, tendered the rent of three months through money order, but landlord refused to accept the rent. It was held that the obligation to pay rent did not come to an end and the tenant should have followed the procedure strictly and deposited the rent in the court under Section 27 of the Act. Having not done so, subsequent deposit of rent in the court in compliance of Section 15 (1) would not give it a protection of Section 14 (2) and would be liable for eviction.
29. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mohd. Abid Vs. Kausar Parveen C.M (M) No.1271/2013 decided on 25.11.2014 referred to the judgment of Sarla Goel (supra) and concluded that in case of refusal of rent by the landlord, the procedure to be followed is dealt under Section 27 and in case the RCT ARCT No. 1151/2016 Page 14 of 16 pages Baljit Singh vs Shakuntala @ Rambati & Ors.
mandatory provision of procedure as prescribed under Section 27 is not followed, then it has to be held that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent.
30. In the present case, there is no denial that once there was refusal or nonacceptance of rent by the landlord, the tenant/ respondents failed to resort to Section 27 of the Act. In the circumstances, it has to be held that mere tender of rent without depositing it under Section 27, the respondents / tenant have committed a second default in nonpayment of rent for three consecutive months and is, therefore, liable for eviction.
31. In Ishwar Dutt vs Ram Piarey, 1 74 Raj. L. R. 302 it was held that in case of a second default in the payment of arrears of rent, even if the tenant had deposited the rent as ordered under Section 15(1), he would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 15 (6) and in view of the provisions of proviso to Section 14(2), he would be liable to be evicted.
32. The deposit of rent regularly pursuant to orders under Section 15 (1) would not save the respondents / tenants from eviction under Section 14 (2) as benefit of Section 15 (1) can be availed only once, which has already been given. It is a clear case of second default of three consecutive months and the respondents RCT ARCT No. 1151/2016 Page 15 of 16 pages Baljit Singh vs Shakuntala @ Rambati & Ors.
cannot be given benefit of Section 14 (2) and are liable for eviction. The learned Additional Rent Controller has wrongly concluded that the respondents have been regularly depositing the rent.
33. The impugned judgment dated 27.08.2015 is hereby set aside. An eviction order in respect of suit premises bearing No. 11/328, First Floor, JJ Colony, Garhi, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi as shown in site plan, is made against the respondents.
34. A copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent to the learned trial court. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on this 24th day of February 2020 (NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) District & Sessions Judge South East, Saket Courts New Delhi RCT ARCT No. 1151/2016 Page 16 of 16 pages Baljit Singh vs Shakuntala @ Rambati & Ors.