Delhi District Court
Sh. Rajiv Kumar vs Smt. Meena Sharma on 20 April, 2017
In the court of Sh. A.S. Jayachandra, Ld. District & Sessions
Judge/Rent Control Tribunal, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
RCT No.09/2016 & 10/2016
Sh. Rajiv Kumar
S/o Sh. Dharampal
R/o Room No. 2, F/F, IX/6933,
Prem Gali, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi- 110051. .....Appellant (in RCT No. 09/16)
1. Dharam Pal S/o Sh. Chunni Lal, aged 45 years
2. Bharat Bhushan S/o Sh. Dharam Pal
Both at : Shop No. 2
F/F, IX/6933,
Prem Gali, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi- 110051. .....Appellants (in RCT No. 10/16)
Vs.
Smt. Meena Sharma
W/o Sh. Trilok Nath Sharma
R/o H. No. IX/5982, Raghubar Gali,
Subhash Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi - 110051.
..... Common Respondent in both the cases
Date of institution : 15.09.2016
Order reserved on : 10.04.2017
Date of Order : 20.04.2017
Orders on appeal :
By a common final order both the above appeals are being disposed
of since the common question of law and identical facts emerge in
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 1/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
both the cases and the arguments advanced in both the cases being
the same.)
Brief facts (RCT No. 09/16) :
1. This is an appeal u/s 38 of the Rent Control Act. The
appellant is the tenant. By the impugned order dated 22.07.2016 in
RC/ARC 684/16 in E.No. 212/05 on the files of ld. SCJ, Shahdara, an
eviction order was passed u/s 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act
against the tenant pertaining to Room no. 2, First Floor, of the
premises bearing no. IX/6933, Prem Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
2. Earlier a petition for eviction on the ground of non-
payment of rents and arrears amounting to Rs.8,800/- w.e.f.
September 2003 was filed. The tenant was proceeded ex-parte
initially. Eviction order is passed subject to provision of Section 14
(2) of the DRC Act and with the direction to the tenant to pay the
rents @ Rs.400/- per month by depositing regularly. The trial court
considered the entitlement of the benefit u/s 14 (2) of DRC Act. Later
tenant was given the opportunity to deposit the arrears with interest.
However, the tenant also sought for setting aside the ex-parte order
which was later withdrawn.
In the proceedings that continued, the landlady had sought for
striking out of the defence of the tenant for delay in depositing the
rents and arrears.
The tenant moved an application for condoning the delay in
depositing the arrears. It is also stated that an application u/s 27 of
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 2/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
the DRC Act is moved for depositing the rents for the subsequent
dates.
The Ld. ARC by an order dated 7.9.2013 had granted the
benefit to the tenant u/s 14 (2) of the Act. The same is challenged in
appeal by the landlord and the appeal was dismissed by an order
the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 24.7.2014. The
said orders were challenged by the landlord before the Hon'ble High
Court. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 3.3.2015 had set
aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the ARC for
considering the applications of the landlord filed u/s 14(2), 15 (7), 25
and 26 of the DRC Act and further directed to adjudicate whether the
tenant was entitled for benefit u/s 14 (2) of the Act, in view of the
subsequents defaults.
Brief facts (RCT No.10/16) :
3. With almost identical grounds, the appellants submit the
following :
(a) that they are the tenants pertaining to Shop No.2;
(b) rate of rent is Rs.300/-;
(c) arrears of rent claimed is Rs.6,600/- in a petition by the
landlord u/s 14 (1) (a);
(d) ex-parte order was passed on 5.9.2006 with a direction to pay
the arrears alongwith interest @ 15% per annum;
(e) on 28.10.2006 the tenant filed application for deposit of rents;
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 3/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
(f) ARC permitted on 30.10.2006;
(g) application was filed on 22.11.2006 for setting aside the ex-
parte order but the same was withdrawn by the tenants on
27.5.2013;
(h) matter was kept for consideration u/s 14(2) alongwith
application of the landlord for striking out the defence;
(I) on 7.9.2013 Rent Controller permitted the tenants and
accorded the protection;
(j) the said order was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal on
24.7.2014;
(k) the orders of the Appellate Tribunal were challenged and the
matter was remitted back by the Hon'ble High Court to the Rent
Controller;
(l) thus in the second round, the Ld. ARC returned the following
findings in RCA No. 683/16 in E.No. 2211//05 by holding that :-
"14. In the present case, the respondent despite having
knowledge of the fact that he has been held to be a
defaulter by the court as per order dated 5 September
2006, and despite having the knowledge that he has yet
not been granted benefit under Section 14(2) of Delhi Rent
Control Act and the petition is pending for the
consideration of his entitlement to the said benefit under
Section 14(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, opted not to
deposit/pay meagre rent of Rs.300/- per month, regularly
as per order under s. 15(1) dated 5 September 2006 read
with section 26 of Delhi Rent Control Act. Therefore, in the
present case it is not the three consecutive defaults which
render the respondent not entitled to benefit under section
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 4/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
14(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act as per the proviso, rather, it
is the default to pay rent regularly (as per order under s. 15
(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act read alongwith section 26 of
Delhi Rent Control Act) during the pendency of the eviction
petition, which renders the respondent not entitled to
benefit under s. 14(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act."
Thus, the appeals on identical grounds.
4. After remanding of the matter, the ld. Court below
adjudicated holding that consequent to the subsequent defaults of
the tenant in clearing the arrears, the landlord is entitled for eviction.
Thus the impugned orders dated 22.07.2016 in both the appeals are
challenged on the following grounds :
Grounds of appeal :
5. The impugned order according to the appellant is
erroneous, bad in law, based on conjectures and surmises. The
Rent Controller erred in holding that the earlier order dated 5.9.2006
was not in accordance with Section 15(1) of the DRC Act. The
earlier order was restricted to the arrears of rent and not for future
rents. Any order or direction to pay the future rent should have been
specific and in writing. The Hon'ble High Court had also not held that
the order dated 5.9.2006 is complete in itself and thus directed the
Rent Controller to adjudicate on the entitlement of benefit arising u/s
14(2) of the Act. The impugned order erred in holding that the earlier
order was complete in all respects. The Rent Controller further failed
to take note of the spirit of section 27 of the DRC Act. The landlord
has not taken separate proceedings for eviction on the ground of
non-payment of rents adjudicated earlier. Therefore, the eviction
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 5/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
order is bad in law. The Rent Controller failed in not according the
benefit u/s 15(1) of the Rent Control Act. Therefore, the impugned
orders are prayed to be set aside.
Point for determination:
6. Upon notice, the respondent - landlord appeared
through the counsel. The trial court records are summoned. Heard
the Ld. Counsel Sh. Rakesh Dudeja for the appellant and Sh. N.N.
Anand for the landlord. The respondent had filed the written
synopsis.
7. Perused the trial court records. In the context of the
rival submissions on either side, the point that arises for
determination in these appeals is "whether the impugned order dated
22.7.2016 is perverse, bad in law and liable to be set aside for non-
application of mind or not?".
Course of the litigation:
8. It is seen from the record that the parties are under
second round of litigation. The Hon'ble High Court while adjudicating
the appeal filed by the landlord in CM (M) 796 and 797 of 2014 by an
order dated 3.3.2015, had noted that :-
"7.The short issue in the present petitions is that in the
absence of an order under Section 15 (1) DRC Act directing
payment of future rent, whether the Court was not required to
consider future defaults in view of provisions under Section
26 of the DRC Act."
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 6/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
While answering this short issue, the Hon'ble High Court had
also noted that :-
"6. The appeals filed before the learned Rent Controller being
RCA 57/13 and RCA 58/13 were dismissed by a common
impugned order dated 24th July, 2014. The learned Tribunal
again did not consider the future defaults and held that vide
order dated 5th September, 2006 the learned ARC had only
directed for deposit of arrears of rent and hence the learned
ARC rightly condoned the delay in filing the arrears of rent
and no directions there being on future rent there was no
illegality in the orders passed by the learned ARC. Hence the
appeals were dismissed.
...
12. Thus even if the learned ARC vide the order dated 5 th
September, 2006 failed to pass directions for payment of
future rent, the tenant was statutorily bound to pay the future
rent in terms of Section 26 of the Act. However, both the
learned ARC and the Rent Controller committed illegality in
not considering Section 26 of the DRC Act and dismissed the
application of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(a), 14 (2)
and 15 (7), 25 and 26 of the DRC Act read with Section 151
CPC on the ground that there was no order for payment of
future rent under Section 15 (1) DRC Act. Thus, there is an
illegality committed by both the Courts below. Hence, the
impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back
to the Additional Rent Controller for consideration of the
petitioner's applications under Sections 14(2), 15(7), 25 and
26 of the DRC Act and whether the respondent was entitled
to the benefit under Section 14(2) of the DRC Act in view of
subsequent defaults."
Hence the Rent Controller re-considered the issue and passed
the impugned orders which are assailed herein. Heard the Ld.
Counsel.
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 7/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
Contentions of the appellant:
9. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the
earlier order dated 5.9.2006 is not a complete order and it never
talked of the future rents. He relies on the directions contained
therein. The ARC had directed the respondent to pay the entire
arrears w.e.f. September, 2003 @ Rs.400/- per month alongwith
interest @ 15 % per annum within thirty days in the case pertaining
to appellant Rajeev Kumar. Therefore, he submits that the tenant
had a legal option under 14(2) DRC Act to deposit the rent and
arrears within one month, for which an order is to be passed by the
Rent Controller.
Contentions of appellants (in RCA No. 10/16) :
10. The earlier order of the Rent Controller dated 5.9.2006
is not a complete order to uphold that the tenants defaulted in
making the payment of rents. The rate of rents deposited was @
Rs.400/- per month and hence there is excess deposit.
11. The ld. Counsel for the appellants further submits that
the delay in payment of arrears is condoned by an order dated
07.09.2013 in both the cases. It is also seen from the order that
there was a plea by the landlord, complaining non payment of rents
after 05.09.2006. The order is clear as under:
"The plea of the petitioner about the non payment of rent in
time after the orders dated 05.09.2006 may be raised by
the petitioner for claiming legal remedy available to him by
way of appropriate remedies and the default of the
respondent in future rent is not relevant for adjudication of
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 8/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
the entitlement u/s 14 (2) of the DRC Act. This being the
first default, the eviction order was restrained". (Order
dated 07.09.2013)."
12. Therefore, the present eviction order is bad in law in
view of the appellant having deposited the entire arrears. The above
order having been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court, there was a
direction to reconsider the defaults by the tenant in payment of
monthly rents in compliance of section 26 of DRC Act. It was argued
on behalf of the appellant that there was an order limited to payment
of arrears and there was no order with regard to payment of future
rents. He further submits that there was no delay in the payment
after the year 2010. He further submits that the benefit of protection
u/s 15(1) of DRC Act is given to the appellants. The demand of
arrears is hit by the law laid down in 2000 (3) SCC 681. Now the
demand for payment of arrears of rent and segregation of time is
time barred.
Contentions of the Respondent- Landlord:
13. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the respondent in
his written synopsis submits that benefit was given by an order
dated 07.09.2013. The findings of the ld. ARC after the directions
from the Hon'ble High Court are unassailable. It is also argued that
no question of law is formulated in this appeal. Hence, appeals are
not maintainable.
The application of the landlord dated 19.07.2013 under 14 (1)
(a), 14 (2), 15 (7), 25 & 26 of DRC Act are based firstly on non
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 9/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
compliance of order of u/s 15 (1) and under section 26 of DRC Act.
Initially there was no application by the tenant in condoning the
delay in payment of rents. The findings of ld. ARC are not challenged
on the material that there was a delay in the deposit of rent. The
mere say of the tenant that the landlord cannot seek recovery of
rents for more than three years is not raised by the tenant anywhere.
14. The ld. Counsel for the respondent-landlord relied on the
following case law:
a) Ram Prakash Tiwari Vs. Surajbhan, 90 (2001) DLT
page 34 & 35- wherein it is held that in case of the tenant
not complying the order u/s 15 of the Act, his defence u/s
15 (7) is liable to struck off and therefore the benefit u/s 14
(2) of the Act does not accrue even in the case of first
default.
b) Manohar Lal Vs. Prem Nath, CMM 638/2011, D.D.
24.05.2011- wherein it was held that tenant ought to have
moved application for condoning the delay in payment of
arrears. It was argued in this case that there was no such
application.
c) B. R. Gupta Vs. Pawan Kumar Gupta, 216 (2015) DLT
395, lays down that the scheme of the Act does not
encourage successive defaults. When a tenant defaults
after a chance was given to him to continue to pay during
the pendency of the petition, he loses the protection under
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 10/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
section 14(2) of the Act. Protection from eviction under the
said provision of the Act can be afforded only to a tenant,
whose default in the deposit/ payment of rent was due to
bona fide reasons. It is not for a tenant who is a recalcitrant
and willful defaulter.
d) Sanjay Kumar Saxena Vs. Meeta Govel, 114 (2004)
DLT 710, lays down that when there is no prayer of tenant
for condoning the default, it is deemed that protection
against eviction is lost u/s 14(2) of the Act. It also
mandates that it is the right of the landlord to receive
arrears of rent and current rent as per the order u/s 15 (1)
of the Act.
e) Shoba David Vs. Om Prakash Gulati, 157 (2009) DLT
611- out Hon'ble High Court held that a tenant's
subsequent default will dis-entitle him to the discretionary
waiver of default for delay in payments.
f) Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors,
115 (2004) DLT 531 SC- is pressed into service to urge
that the landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent
but is also entitled for the compensation in delay in
executing the decree.
g) Atma Ram Vs. Shakuntala Rani, AIR 2005 SC 3753-
is relied to urge that a tenant opting for advantages under
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 11/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
the provisions of the Rent Act must strictly comply. If he
does not, he cannot take any advantage under the rules.
15. The ld. Counsel for the respondent landlord submits that
provision of section 26 of DRC Act makes it mandatory for the tenant
to pay the rents within time and non payment of rents by 15th day of
each month for the preceding month shall automatically dis-entitle
him to seek any protection.
16. It was pointed out by the Ld. Counsel Sh. Anand for the
respondent by giving the chronological events as under :
(a) 5.9.2006 - order u/s 14 (1) (a) was passed ex-parte.
(b) 19.10.2006 - tenants appeared -no application for
condoning the delay has been filed.
(c) On 28.10.2006 - application was moved without
condonation of delay and no order was passed to deposit
the rents month to month.
(d) 30.10.2006 - the application of the tenant was allowed
but without prejudice to the rights of the parties.
(e) 1.11.2006 - rent is deposited @ Rs. 300/- per month
instead of Rs.400/- per month.
(f) 2.11.2006 - application was filed u/o 9 rule 13 of CPC.
(g) 27.5.2013 - the application u/o 9 rule 13 of CPC is
dismissed as withdrawn.
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 12/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
(h) 7.9.2013 - the delay was condoned and benefit u/s 14
(2) of DRC Act is given.
17. He submits that since the rate of rents adjudged having
not been strictly complied with regard to the rate and the time to
deposit, there cannot be any further benefit to be shown to the tenant
and thus the eviction order is justified.
Answers to the point for determination:
(i) Regarding question of law :
18. It was argued by the appellant that the appeal be
dismissed in limine since there is no question of law urged by the
appellant as is mandated u/s 38 of DRC Act, 1958. No doubt there is
no question of law framed in these appeals by the appellants. At the
same time, the court cannot be oblivious of the fact that while
remitting the matter, the Hon'ble High Court had directed the Ld.
Rent Controller to answer specifically with regard to the applicability
of the provisions u/s 14 (2), 15 (7), 25 and 26 of the DRC Act filed by
the landlord and also to return a finding whether the tenant was
entitled for protection u/s 14 (2) of the Act in view of the subsequent
defaults.
19. The instant appeals being the continuation of the
proceedings and the appellants having challenged the legality of the
orders of the Ld. ARC, the same question of law recurs to be re-
visited by this court in appeal. Hence, the appeal cannot dismissed
without re-examining the impugned order as regards its legality.
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 13/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
(ii) Legality of the impugned order :
20. Keeping in mind of the submissions on either side, to
find out the alleged perversity or illegality of the impugned order, it is
necessary that certain points on facts as culled out from the
impugned order needs reproduction here as under:
From ARC No. 684/16 in E- No. 212/15 pertaining to RCT Appeal
No. 09/16 :
"10. After order dated 5 September, 2006, the future rent was
deposited by the respondent as under :-
133/07 Nov/06 to Jan/07 1200 21/02/07
309/07 Feb/07 to Mar/07 800 26/04/07
445/07 Apr/07 to May/07 800 05/06/07
614/07 June/07 to July/07 800 10/08/07
743/07 Aug/07 to Sep/07 800 01/10/07
884/07 Oct/07 to Nov/07 800 10/12/07
64/07 Dec/07 to Jan/08 800 01/02/08
219/08 Feb/08 to Mar/08 800 04/04/08
372/08 Apr/08 to May/08 800 05/06/08
519/08 June/08 to July/08 800 27/08/08
698/08 Aug/08 to Sep/08 800 22/10/08
1024/08 Oct/08 to Nov/08 800 24/12/08
35/09 Dec/08 to Jan/09 800 03/02/09
153/09 Feb/09 to Mar/09 800 27/03/09
285/09 Apr/09 to June/09 1200 02/06/09
453/09 July/09 to Sep/09 1200 17/09/09
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 14/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
675/09 Oct/09 to Dec/09 1200 19/12/09
389/10 Jan/10 to June/10 2525 07/07/10
592/10 July/10 to Sep/10 1235 09/09/10
81/10 Oct/10 to Dec/10 1200 21/12/10
29/11 Jan/11 to Feb/11 800 25/01/11
57/11 Mar/11 to Apr/11 800 10/03/11
93/11 May/11 to July/11 1200 09/06/11
112/11 Aug/11 to Sep/11 800 07/09/11
466/11 Oct/11 to Dec/11 1200 20/10/11
18/12 Jan/12 to Mar/12 1200 24/01/12
113/12 Apr/12 to June/12 1200 25/04/12
187/12 July/12 to Sep/12 1200 23/07/12
348/12 Oct/12 to Dec/12 1200 09/11/12
42/13 Jan/13 to Mar/13 1200 22/01/13
25/03 Apr/13 to June/13 1200 16/04/13
261/13 July/13 to Sep/13 1200 16/07/13
11. A month after the order dated 5 September 2006, the
respondent committed default in making payment of rent
for three consecutive months i.e. for the months of
November 2006, December 2006 and January 2006, as
the rent for the said three months was deposited by the
respondent on 21 February 2007 and that too without
interest at the rate of 155 per annum. From the table of
the payment of rent, as reproduced herein above, it can be
seen that the respondent defaulted to pay the rent as per
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 15/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
section 26 of Delhi Rent Control Act despite order dated 5
September 2006, even though the proceedings were
pending for consideration of entitlement of the respondent
to benefit under Section 14 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act."
21. The ld Court below emphasized several reasons within
the paragraph of 13 for rejecting the contentions of the tenant. The
court below held that:
a) the object of section 14 (1) (a) of the Act is not recovery
of rents but eviction upon adjudication u/s 14 (2) of the Act.
b) The purpose of section 15 (1) of the DRC Act is to see
that the tenant deposits the rent as and when it becomes
due, till the entire dispute is adjudicated u/s 15 (1) after
considering the discretionary power in according the
benefit to the tenant u/s 14 (2) of the Act.
c) This protection u/s 14 (2) of the Act is for a bonafide
tenant and not for a defaulting one.
d) The protection u/s 14 (2) is not open always; but only
once to the tenant.
e) If once the benefit is given further defaults cannot be
condoned and eviction shall pass.
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 16/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
From the Record of ARC No. 683/16 in E No. 211/15 pertaining
to RCT Appeal No. 10/16:
"10. After order dated 5 September 2006, the future rent was
deposited by the respondent as under :
132/07 Nov/06 to Jan/07 900 21/02/07
312/07 Feb/07 to Mar/07 600 26/04/07
447/07 Apr/07 to May/07 600 05/06/07
613/07 June/07 to July/07 600 10/08/07
742/07 Aug/07 to Sep/07 600 01/10/07
883/17 Oct/07 to Nov/07 600 10/12/07
65/07 Dec/07 to Jan/08 600 01/02/08
215/08 Feb/08 to Mar/08 600 04/04/08
371/08 Apr/08 to May/08 600 05/06/08
520/08 June/08 to July/08 600 27/08/08
699/08 Aug/08 to Sep/08 600 22/10/08
1025/08 Oct/08 to Nov/08 600 24/12/08
34/09 Dec/08 to Jan/09 600 03/02/09
152/09 Feb/09 to Mar/09 600 27/03/09
284/09 Apr/09 to June/09 900 02/06/09
454/09 July/09 to Sep/09 900 17/09/09
676/09 Oct/09 to Dec/09 900 19/12/09
388/10 Jan/10 to June/10 1894 07/07/10
591/10 July/10 to Sep/10 925 09/09/10
80/10 Oct/10 to Dec/10 900 21/12/10
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 17/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
30/11 Jan/11 to Feb/11 600 25/01/11
58/11 Mar/11 to Apr/11 600 10/03/11
94/11 May/11 to July/11 900 09/06/11
113/11 Aug/11 to Sep/11 600 07/09/11
465/11 Oct/11 to Dec/11 900 20/10/11
19/12 Jan/12 to March/12 900 24/01/12
114/12 Apr/12 to June/12 900 25/04/12
186/12 July/12 to Sep/12 900 23/07/12
349/12 Oct/12 to Dec/12 900 09/11/12
43/13 Jan/13 to March/12 900 22/01/13
26/13 Apr/13 to June/13 900 16/04/13
260/13 July/13 to Sept/13 900 16/07/13"
22. As noted above, the Hon'ble High Court was concerned
with the provisions of section 26 of the DRC Act and its applicability
in the backdrop of there being no order u/s 15 (1) of DRC Act in both
the cases.
23. During the course of arguments, it is admitted by the Ld.
Counsel for the appellant that the arrears were deposited @ Rs.300/-
per month and not at the rate as directed in case of Tenant Rajeev
Kumar. The same is noted in the order of the trial court also showing
deposit of rent for the period of November, 2006 to January, 2007 as
sum of Rs.900/- which was deposited only during 21.2.2007. No
interest is deposited. The trial court records and the impugned order
at page 2 and 3 is very clear. The same continued. It is clearly
forthcoming from the chronological deposits made, that there has
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 18/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
been no proper deposits within the time prescribed u/s 15 (1) of the
Rent Control Act. There is a mandatory obligation on the tenant to
deposit and to continue to pay or deposit month by month by 15 th of
each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.
As regards the other appeal, there has been continuous delay
in deposit of rents and there was no timely deposits.
24. The Hon'ble High Court directed the Rent Controller to
find out the eligibility of the tenant for the benefit of protection
provided u/s 14(2) of the DRC Act in view of the subsequent defaults.
It was also directed to consider the applications u/s 14 (2), 15 (7) and
also section 25 and 26 of the said Act of the landlord.
25. Section 14(2) of the DRC Act creates a rider in passing
the eviction order on the ground of non-payment of rents. If the
tenant makes payment or deposits the same as required u/s 15 of
DRC Act, then no eviction order can be passed. After careful perusal
and further considering the language employed u/s 15 (1) of the DRC
Act, it becomes clear that the Act aimed at the proper, diligent and
timely payment of rents. It is also clear that this provision not only
expects the tenant to clear the arrears but also mandates him to pay
the current rents [which becomes future rents after the initial order
u/s 14 (1)] month to month and the same shall have to be paid or
deposited on or before 15th of each succeeding month for the
preceding month. It also clearly commands that the sum shall be
equivalent to the rent at that rate.
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 19/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
26. In the case of this tenant, the sums deposited are not at
the equivalent rate. Having noted the language employed in this
provision, it is clear that there cannot be any further defaults at all.
The chronological events of the deposits made by the tenant exposit
that :
a) the tenant had not deposited the rents and the arrears
equivalent to the rent adjudicated.
b) the same is belated.
c) the subsequent deposits are not in conformity with the
provisions u/s 15 (1) as regards the date of deposits and
the sum adjudged.
27. As per section 26 of the DRC Act, again there is a
direction to the tenant that he shall pay the rent within the time fixed
by contract or in the absence by 15th day of the succeeding month.
If there is any default, the tenant is liable to pay the interest. The
object of Section 26 (1) is to enforce the tenant to pay the rents
regularly within the prescribed time or to pay the penalty by way of
interest. It must be noted that section 26 is the first provision under
Chapter 6 of the Act which deals with the deposit of rents.
28. The control of eviction of the tenants is governed under
Chapter 3 of the Act which runs from section 14 to Section 25 C.
Therefore, the matters of eviction is separated and segregated from
the aspect of deposit of rents, from the scheme of the Act as
intended by the legislature. The obligations of the tenants to pay the
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 20/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
rents are spoken to in both the chapters and it runs as a common
thread in both the chapters since the very privity between the parties
arises out of rents payable by the tenant who enters into possession
of the property of the other and enjoys the same. At the same time,
the eviction on the ground of non-payment of rents is clearly
mandated u/s 15(1) which speaks of the 'quantum of rent' and the
'prescribed time' to deposit the rent. Since the tenant had failed to
comply both the obligations of quantum of rent and the prescribed
time, the landlord is entitled to seek the striking of the defence of the
tenant u/s 15 (7) of the DRC Act.
29. As regards section 25 of the DRC Act, the landlord is
entitled to seek vacant possession upon the orders of the Rent
Controller which shall be binding not only on the tenant but also on
every such person in possession. The non-payment of rent is a
recognized ground for eviction of the tenant. Her Lordship Justice
Mukta Gupta in CMM 796, 797 of 2014 by an order dated 3.3.2015
directed the Rent Controller to look into the aspects of section 14 (2),
15 (7), 25 and 26 of the DRC Act. In the impugned order, all these
aspects have been dealt with. The obligation of a tenant to pay the
rent is already determined and non-compliance is also upheld. The
said obligation is discussed in Section 26. After going through the
facts and the findings thereon by the Ld. ARC, it is clear as at para
14 that there was a benefit of protection granted which was violated
and the obligations to pay the rent u/s 14, 15 and 26 having been
violated, this court does not find any reasons to arrive at the
impugned order being perverse, opposed to law and not-sustainable.
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 21/23
Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16
30. The only contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant
is that the landlord cannot claim the arrears of rent in violation of the
provisions of Article 52 of the Limitation Act, which hit the entire case
of the appellant. He relies on the ruling of Kamla Bakshi vs.
Khairati Lal 2000 (3) SCC 381. It was a case where one landlord
succeeded in the suit for mandatory injunction for eviction against the
occupier which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, a
notice was issued claiming arrears of rent and initiated proceedings
for eviction invoking section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act for rent for the
period which was spent in prosecuting the civil suit. In that case the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the landlords cannot be allowed to
claim the arrears of rents beyond the period of limitation.
In the instant case, respondent had never objected to the claim
of the landlord for the arrears at the time of inception of the
proceedings u/s 14 (2) of the DRC Act. All these arrears accrued
under the valid orders of the Rent Controller constituted under the
Act. With utmost respect to the ruling, it is to be noted that the
principle of law laid down therein cannot be made applicable to the
present set of facts in the instant case which is totally of a different
genre. Thus, the contentions of the tenant that there was no arrears
of rent and that there were bonafides in not depositing the rents
timely, cannot be accepted. Consequently, the following order :
ORDER :
Both the appeals stand dismissed. The orders dated 22.07.2016 in RC/ARC No. 684/16 in E. No. 212/05 and in RC/ARC Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 22/23 Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16 No. 683/16 in E. No. 211/05 on the files of Ld. SCJ, Shahdara, KKD Courts, are hereby affirmed.
A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court alongwith the trial court records. There shall be no order as to costs.
Original of this order be kept in RCT Appeal No.09/16 and a copy thereof in RCT Appeal No. 10/16 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (A.S. Jayachandra) on 20th April, 2017 District & Sessions Judge, Rent Control Tribunal, Shahdara/KKD Courts, Delhi.
Rajiv Kumar vs. Meena Sharma RCT No. 9/16 20.04.2017 Page 23/23Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. Meena Sharma RCT No.10/16