Delhi District Court
Shri Sushila Kumari Jain vs Sh. Bhagwan Dass on 18 December, 2009
IN THE COURT OF SMT. PRATIBHA RANI, DJIII
CUMASJ (WEST), DELHI
***
RCT115/09
Shri Sushila Kumari Jain
w/o Sh. Babu Ram Jain
r/o 10944/5, Mandir Road
Doriwalan, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi110005
(through her Attorney,
Sh.Babu Ram Jain).
......Appellant
Versus
Sh. Bhagwan Dass
s/o Late Sh.Gainda Ram
r/o 10944/5, Mandir Road,
Doriwalan, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi110005.
....Respondent
Date of Institution : 06.10.2009
Date of Arguments : 14.12.2009
Date of Order : 18.12.2009
O R D E R
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/landlord challenging the order dated 29.10.09 passed by Ld.ARC, Delhi vide which while disposing off the application of the appellant u/s 15(2) DRC Act, the tenant was ordered to deposit the rent three years prior to the date of filing of that 1 application.
2. Notice of the appeal was sent to the respondent and TCR was also summoned.
3. I have heard Shri Praveen Suri, counsel for the appellant and Sh. V.P.Malik, counsel for the respondent and also gone through the record.
4. Ld. counsel for the appellant Sh.Praveen Suri has submitted that Ld.ARC has committed an error by declining the rent legally recoverable from the date of petition and only awarding the same only from the date of application filed u/s 15 (2) DRC Act. Ld. counsel has drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 15(2) DRC Act which read as under: "15. When a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction (2) If, in any proceeding for the recovery of possession of any premises on any ground other than that referred to in subsection (1), the tenant contests that claim for eviction, the landlord may, at any stage of the proceedings, make an application to the Controller for an order on the tenant to pay to the landlord the amount of rent legally recoverable from the tenant and the Controller may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, make an order in accordance with the provisions of the said sub section."
5. It has been further contended by Ld counsel for 2 Appellant submitting that the eviction petition was filed in this case u/s 14(1)(h) of the DRC Act and even in that petition the landlord was entitled to claim arrears of rent by moving an application to that effect which was duly moved in this case. The view taken by Ld Addl Rent Controller that legally recoverable rent would be computed from the date of said application and not from the date of petition is erroneous.
6. Ld. counsel for the respondent Sh.V.P.Malik has contended that the legal position has been explained in the cases reported in 1985 (2) Rent Control Reporter 134 Col. (Retd.) Y.R. Puri Vs. J.C. Mittal and another, 19 (1981) Delhi Law Times 1 Daulat Ram Vs Som Nath and Others & 1993 (1) Rent Control Reporter 505 and while disposing of the application u/s 15(2) DRC Act, Ld.ARC could have ordered only the rent three years prior to date of filing application u/s 15(2) DRC Act and not from the date of petition. It has been further contended that the respondent has already deposited rent upto 31.08.01, credit of which has not been given by the appellant till date. Ld. counsel for the Appellant Sh.Praveen Suri submitted that this submission of the respondent be recorded in the order itself as that rent was 3 deposited U/s 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act and was not a valid tender.
7. The short point involved in the present appeal is whether Ld.ARC could have awarded the arrears of rent from the date of the petition which was filed on 12.05.2000 or from the date of application u/s 15(2) DRC Act which was filed on 15.07.2008.
Ld counsel for the respondent has relied upon judgment reported in 1985 (2) Rent Control Reporter 134 Col. (Retd.) Y.R. Puri Vs. J.C. Mittal and another in which while holding that landlord, at any stage of the proceedings, can only seek the direction of the tenant to pay to the landlord the amount of rent legally recoverable from him, in para 6 of the judgment, it was held as under:
"6. I do not find any error of jurisdiction. Under Section 15 (2) of the Act, if, in any proceeding for the recovery of possession of any premises on any ground other than that referred to in subsection (1), the tenant contests the claim for eviction, the landlord may, at any stage of the proceeding, make an application to the Controller for an order on the tenant to pay to the landlord the amount of legally recoverable from the tenant and the Controller may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, make an order in 4 accordance with the provisions of the said subsection. This is exactly what the Rent Controller did when he passed the order on August 11, 1983. The deposit can be ordered only for rent legally recoverable, which means rent for recovery of which a suit can be filed. It means rent for the recovery of which there is no legal bar. It has no other scope."
Ld counsel for the appellant could not quote any provision or refer to any case law under which/wherein landlord can seek the direction to claim even time barred rent. The very term `legally recoverable' means that the arrears of rent which have not become barred by limitation. Mere filing of the petition in the year 2000 without claiming arrears of rent or seeking any direction U/s 15 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act for any such direction to the tenant will not bring the claim of the petitioner for arrears of rent within limitation just for the reason that petition was filed in the year 2000, though application U/s 15 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act was moved in the year 2000.
In the instant case while filing the petition u/s 14(1)
(h) of DRC Act in the year 2000, non payment of rent was not a ground of eviction petition.
Since the application u/s 15(2) of DRC Act was filed 5 on 15.7.08 demanding arrears of rent, only the legally recoverable rent i.e. for the period of 3 years prior to filing of that application could have been awarded, Ld.Addl Rent Controller vide impugned order has rightly come to the conclusion that respondent is liable to pay only the legally recoverable rent which is 3 years from the date of filing of the application i.e. 15.7.08. Obviously, the Appellant could not have filed a suit for recovery for the amount due to him towards arrears of rent for the period prior to the three years from 15.07.2008 when this application was moved. Thus, any amount due prior to this date cannot be said to be legally recoverable from the tenant. The arrears of rent prior to that period being not legally recoverable from the tenant, could not have been ordered while disposing of the application u/s 15(2) DRC Act. I find no illegality in the impugned order, hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent back and appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (PRATIBHA RANI) 18.12.09 DJIIIcumI/c ASJ (West)/Delhi 6