Delhi High Court
Smt. Shobha David vs Sh. Om Prakash Gulati & Anr. on 3 February, 2009
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 1162/2008 & CM 14481/2008
Reserved on: January 30, 2009
% Date of Decision: February 03, 2009
SMT. SHOBHA DAVID ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manoj K. Singh with Mr.
Rupesh Gupta, Advocates
Versus
SH. OM PRAKASH GULATI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 30th August, 2008 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner/tenant's appeal against an eviction order dated 22nd December, 2007 by denying petitioner/tenant the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2. Mr. Manoj K. Singh, learned Counsel for petitioner/tenant submitted that the initial default having been condoned by rejection of respondents/landlords' application under Section 15(7) of the Act, the petitioner/tenant could have been evicted only if she made a subsequent default in payment of rent for three consecutive months. Mr. Manoj K. Singh stated that it was not even the CM(M) 1162/2008 Page 1 of 4 respondents/landlords' case that the petitioner/tenant had committed a second default of non-payment of rent for three consecutive months. He clarified that even according to the respondents/ landlords, the second default in payment of rent was only for a period of six days and, therefore Mr. Singh submitted that the petitioner/tenant was not liable to be evicted under the Proviso to Section 14(2) of the Act. Section 14(2) of the Act reads as follows:-
"14. Protection of tenant against eviction.
(2) No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause
(a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by section 15:
Provided that no tenant shall be entitled to the benefit under this sub-section, if, having obtained such benefit once in respect of any premises, he again makes a default in the payment of rent of those premises for three consecutive months."
(emphasis supplied)
3. Mr. Amarjit Singh, Learned Counsel for respondents/ landlords on the other hand submitted that the impugned order of eviction had been passed not on the ground of Proviso to Section 14(2) of the Act but on account of non-payment of rent by the petitioner/tenant, which fell in Sections 14(1)(a) and 15 read with the initial part of Section 14(2) of the Act.
4. Learned Counsel for respondent/landlords contended that as the petitioner/tenant had failed to deposit the amount of Rs. 80,000/- approximately towards arrears of rent with effect from 1st January, 2002 to 30th April, 2005, the Additional Rent Controller on 10th April, 2005 passed an order directing the petitioner/tenant to pay the arrears of rent to the respondents/landlords within one month.
5. He stated that the petitioner/tenant had time till 10th April, 2005 to deposit the arrears of rent in accordance with Section 15(1) of the Act. However, he pointed out that the admitted position was that the arrears of rent were deposited by CM(M) 1162/2008 Page 2 of 4 the petitioner/tenant on 6th May, 2005 without any application for condonation of delay. Mr. Amarjit Singh stated that though respondents/landlords' application under Section 15(7) of the Act for striking off the tenants' defence was dismissed, the Tribunal in respondents/landlords' appeal remanded the matter back to the Additional Rent Controller leaving the issue of default open for determination at the stage of Section 14(2) of the Act. Mr. Amarjit Singh stated that petitioner/tenant further delayed the payment of rent of September, 2005 by a period of six days as it deposited the rent only on 21st October, 2005.
6. On a perusal of the file, I find that both the Additional Rent Controller as well as the Additional Rent Control Tribunal have given a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner/tenant had not only defaulted in payment of rent from January, 2002 to 30th April, 2005 but had also not paid the same within the statutory time period prescribed in Section 15(1) of the Act.
7. In my view, the petitioner/tenant's subsequent default in payment of rent for the month of September, 2005 also shows that the petitioner/tenant is not entitled to any discretionary waiver of default for making delayed payment of rent.
8. Moreover, I am of the view that dismissal of the respondents/landlords' application under Section 15(7) of the Act by the Additional Rent Controller, did not imply that the petitioner/tenant's initial default of payment of rent stood condoned. In fact, the Tribunal by virtue of its remand order dated 9th December, 2005 clearly left open the issue of default by the petitioner to be considered at the stage of Section 14(2) of the Act - which was considered by the Additional Rent Controller vide her orders dated 26th July, 2007 and 22nd December, 2007, whereby respondents/landlords' eviction petition was allowed on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.
9. Consequently, in my opinion the eviction order passed against the petitioner/tenant was not passed under the Proviso to Section 14(2) of the Act, as CM(M) 1162/2008 Page 3 of 4 erroneously submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner/tenant, but was rightly passed on the ground of non-payment of rent by the petitioner/tenant within the time frame prescribed under Section 15(1) of the Act as provided in the initial portion of Section 14(2) of the Act.
10. I may mention that I had offered reasonable time to vacate the premises to the petitioner's counsel. However, the petitioner's counsel refused to accept this offer on the ground that he had no instructions. Accordingly, present petition along with pending application are dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J February 03, 2009 rn/sb CM(M) 1162/2008 Page 4 of 4