Delhi High Court
Lata Malhotra vs Dhan Shob Raj on 13 January, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997IAD(DELHI)692, 65(1997)DLT417, 1997(40)DRJ331, 1997RLR238
JUDGMENT Usha Mehra, J.
(1) Mrs. Lata Malhotra felt aggrieved with the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC) under Section 15(7) of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act). By the ARC's order her defense was struck off. It ultimately led to the passing of an order of eviction against her. The appeal preferred by her was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 3rd August,1996.
(2) She has raised two legal questions, which according to her are of general public importance and requires authoritative pronouncements. These are namely, (i) whether delay in deposit of rent can be condoned; (ii) whether the Appellate Court ought not to interfere with the finding of negligence returned by the Trial Court?
(3) In order to appreciate these points, we must have a quick glance to the relevant facts of the case. The respondent/ landlord filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(a)(c) & (j) of the Act. This Court in SAO.No.279/71 fixed the rent of the premises in question at Rs.125.00 per month. Directions were given to the present petitioner to pay the arrears of rent for the period 1st July,1982 to 30th September,1989 and further rent be paid month by month. It was the case of the tenant that the legal heirs of the landlord did not accept the rent when tendered for the subsequent period. She had always been willing to pay the rent. However, the contentions of the landlord are contrary to the case set up by the present petitioner when according to the landlord/respondent herein rent was not paid regularly. He filed a petition under Section 15(1) of the Act. The Trial Court passed an order on this application under Section 15(1) of the Act on 23rd May,1995 thereby directing the petitioner to pay arrears of rent within one month and further to pay monthly rent by 15th of each English calender month. Respondent/landlord alleged that inspite of the order under Section 15(1) of the Act, the tenant did not pay rent regularly. Rent for June,1995 was paid in July,1995 and for the month of September, October, November, December,1995 and January,1996 the tenant/petitioner did not pay the rent nor deposited the same in Court. When six month's rent was not deposited the landlord/respondent took out notice under Section 15(7) of the Act. The petitioner herein took the plea that the rent for the said period was sent by her through her employee Mr.Manoj Sharma for being deposited in the Court. Mr.Manoj Sharma confirmed to her in September,1995 itself that the rent had been deposited. She had in fact deposited advance rent for the months of September, October, November, December,1995 and January,1996. On receiving the information from her counsel that the rent for six months had not been deposited, she deposited the rent of six months on 23rd February,1996. Therefore, there was no negligence or willful default on her part. However, respondent/landlord alleges that she was a habitual defaulter.
(4) It is in this background that the Additional Rent Controller considered the application under Section 15(7) of the Act and concluded that there was a gross negligence on the part of the present petitioner. She not only did not deposit the rent for six months but also did not bother to check about the deposit of the rent. Courts below after considering all aspects of the case concluded that there was gross negligence on the part of the tenant/petitioner. That the negligence was contumacious.
(5) From the above narration of facts, it clearly emerges that the petitioner inspite of the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act did not deposit rent month by month. Rent for the month of June,1995 was deposited in July,1995. Admittedly, the rent for the month of September,1995 to January,1996 had also not been deposited. It is now settled by the Apex Court that delay if sufficiently explained can be condoned in case rent is not deposited as ordered. The question for consideration whether in the facts of this case non-deposit of rent can be attributed as willful default or contumacious or gross negligence. The Courts below gave concurrent finding that the story of deposit of rent from September,1995 to January,1996 through one Manoj Sharma was after thought. The petitioner was represented by a counsel. It was not her case that Mr.Manoj Sharma was representing her in the Court and knew the procedure of depositing the rent in Court. A prudent man would send the rent for the purpose of deposit in Court through her counsel. Therefore, in the normal course she would have sent the rent for the purpose of deposit to her lawyer which she did not do. The rent in the Court is not deposited by leaving the money with some one. It is deposited through a challan. If Mr.Manoj Sharma had deposited the rent in Court for six months, he would have got the challan or challans as proof of deposit. But none produced nor petitioner asked for the proof of deposit of rent from Manoj Sharma. The story of oral confirmation does not appeal to reason. The contention of Mr.Madan Gera, counsel for the petitioner that petitioner being illiterate women did not know that she was to ask for the challan. This argument does not cut any ice because the petitioner being a business woman had an employee to whom she could send to Court but did not bother to obtain proof of its deposit. A receipt was to be obtained. As a business woman she could have asked for the receipt from her employee, but nothing of that sort explained nor pleaded. Rather her case is that she got oral confirmation from Mr.Manoj Sharma that he deposited the rent. She did not check up this fact from her counsel as to whether Manoj Sharma deposited the rent or not. This proves an act of indifferent attitude on the part of the petitioner/tenant. It would not be wrong to say that this attitude is nothing but an act of gross negligence. The Courts below rightly concluded that the default was due to an act of gross negligence. Therefore, the delay could not be condoned. I see no reason to disagree with this finding. It was not for the first time that she committed such default. Even in June,1995 she committed the default when she deposited the rent of June,1995 in July,1995. Further contention of Mr.Madan Gera that she had been depositing advance rent cannot be supported from the record. The only instance pointed out was that of July and August,1995. According to Mr.Gera she deposited the advance rent of August,1995, but to my mind, this she did in order to overcome the delay in deposit of rent for June,1995. To cover up the same she deposited one month's advance rent. No reason has been assigned why she sent six months rent in advance. No other occasion cited when she deposited the advance rent. Therefore, so far as deposit of advance rent of August,1995 is concerned, that by itself is not a conduct which would entitle her to any benefit. As already pointed out that she deposited in advance to cover up late deposit of June's rent. Hence no benefit of that can be taken by her. Trial Court was not wrong in concluding that she built up story of deposit of six month's advance rent in order to overcome the legal hurdles.
(6) The judgments relied by Mr.Madan Gera of this Court in the case of M/s Bharat Pulvarising Mills Private Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Tara Chand Malik Charitable Trust & ors., 1973 Rcr page 1, M/s Arian Afghan Airlines Co.Ltd. Vs. M/s Cycle Equipments (P) Ltd., Ilr (1978) Ii Delhi page 317, Ms.Santosh Mehta Vs.Om Parkash, 1980 Rlr (SC) 355 and Bimal Chand Jain Vs.Gopal Agarwal, are of no help to him. Once it is established that there was gross negligence on the part of the tenant in committing default in deposit of rent then such default committed cannot be condoned. In the cases cited above by the petitioner there was no negligence or wilful default. But that is not the case in hand. Therefore, it cannot be said that the conduct of the petitioner was diligent or that her conduct in depositing the rent for the months of July and Augst,1995 should be taken note of. In fact as explained above the conduct of the petitioner was such which go to show that she was negligent in deposit of rent. In order to cover up her default of June,1995 she deposited the advance rent in August,1995 alleging as if she was depositing advance rent which in fact was to cover up her default for the month of June,1995. From that conduct coupled with her act of not depositing rent from September,1995 to January,1996 negligence or wilful default can clearly be inferred. It cannot be said that she had offered any plausible explanation. I am in agreement with the observations of the learned Rent Control Tribunal that it was highly improbable that the petitioner would have sent advance rent for a period of six months to be deposited in the month of September,1995. The story of Manoj Sharma has been inserted after thought to cover up her gross negligence.
(7) For the reasons stated above, I find no merits in the petition nor any infirmity in the impugned order. Dismissed.