Skip to content


Silvertoe Manufacturing Co. of India Vs. Usha Soi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 315 of 1983
Judge
Reported inAIR1984Delhi27; 25(1984)DLT67; 1984(6)DRJ208; 1984RLR92
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)
AppellantSilvertoe Manufacturing Co. of India
RespondentUsha Soi
Advocates: Shyam Kishore,; A.P. Gupta and; H.K.L. Aggarwal, Advs
Excerpt:
delhi rent control act, 1958 - section 14(1)(a)--tribunal directed the tenant to deposit within 15 days the entire arrears of rent 'after adjusting two months' rent for repairs'. subsequently, the appeal was dismissed. the rent controller ordered ejectment of the tenant for defaults in the payment of rent.; that the tenant was not in default in payment of two months of rent which he subsequently deposited. the tenant cannot be ejected on this score. - .....of the tenant on 5-5-1980. but he made no order to the tenant that he should within a specified time deposit two months' rent which mr. bahri had allowed nim to withhold on account of claim for repairs. in my opinion it was the duty of the tribunal at the time of dismissing the appeal on , to give time to the tenant to deposit rent of two months which his predecessor by order dated 6-10-1979 had asked him to withhold on the ground that the question of two months' rent deductible on account of repairs had to be decided in the appeal.(5) it was incumbent on the tribunal to give time within which the tenant was to deposit the disputed two months rent. at the time of the admission of the appeal mr bahri had given 15 days' time to deposit all arrears of rent 'after adjusting two months'.....
Judgment:

A.B. Rohatgi, J.

(1) The landlady has sued the tenant for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. By order dated 28th May, 1983 the Rent Control Tribunal has held that the appellant tenant made a default in depositing two months' rent in pursuance of the order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act) passed against him on 5-9-1979. On this ground it has upheld the ejectment of the tenant ordered by the Rent Controller and dismissed and tenant's appeal. The tenant appeals to this Court.

(2) It is not in dispute that from the order dated 5-9-1979 under Section 15(1) of the Act passed by the Controller the tenant appealed to the Tribunal. That appeal came before Mr. P.K. Bahri who was then the presiding officer of the Tribunal. At the time of the admission of the appeal on 6-10-1979 he directed the tenant to deposit within 15 days the entire arrears of rent 'after adjusting two months' rent for repairs'. Subsequently the appeal was dismissed by the tribunal on 5-5-1980. By that time Mr. V.S. Aggarwal had succeeded to Mr. Bahri.

(3) At the time of the final decision of the ejectment application the Controller, Mrs. Kamal Inder, found that the tenant had made several defaults in the payment of rent. On this finding she, by her judgment dated 23-1-1983, ordered the ejectment of the tenant. From that order the tenant again appealed to the tribunal. The tribunal passed the impugned order on 28-5-1983. holding that the tenant was liable to deposit the rent for two months after the dismissal of the appeal by the tribunal on 5-5-1980 which Mr. Bahri had ordered him not to deposit at the time of the admission of the appeal on 6-10-1979. It is true that two months' rent was withheld by the tenant and was not deposited on the ground of his claim for repairs, Mr. Bahri had permitted him not to deposit two months' rent. Though the tenant disputes the correctness of the finding of the tribunal he deposited on 30-5-1983 this amount of two months' rent also.

(4) The short question is whether the tenant can be said to have defaulted in the deposit of two months' rent which Mr. Bahri had asked him ''to adjust' and not to deposit by his order dated 6-10-1979. It is true that Mr.V.S.Aggarwal dismissed the appeal of the tenant on 5-5-1980. But he made no order to the tenant that he should within a specified time deposit two months' rent which Mr. Bahri had allowed nim to withhold on account of claim for repairs. In my opinion it was the duty of the tribunal at the time of dismissing the appeal on , to give time to the tenant to deposit rent of two months which his predecessor by order dated 6-10-1979 had asked him to withhold on the ground that the question of two months' rent deductible on account of repairs had to be decided in the appeal.

(5) It was incumbent on the tribunal to give time within which the tenant was to deposit the disputed two months rent. At the time of the admission of the appeal Mr Bahri had given 15 days' time to deposit all arrears of rent 'after adjusting two months' rent for repairs'. Similarly at the time of dismissing the appeal time to deposit ought to have been given. The claim for repairs, it seems, was rejected. Default will occur if the deposit is not made within the time mentioned in the order. If anything has to be done the court or the tribunal must specify the time within which it has to be done, if penal consequences follow from not doing that thing. Time is important in these cases. If certain things are to be done within a'certain time the order must specify. Rules of law provide for legal consequences following if something does or does not happen within a stated time. Non-performance within the period specified results in ejectment. This is the theory of Section 14(1)(a) and Section 15 of the Act.

(6) Counsel for the landlady argued that Section 15 prescribes the time within which the tenant must deposit. To cases of stay, Section 15 has no application. Stay is a virtual moratoriur. It is a state of suspension. The duty of performance of the act is revived by lifting the stay. That is revival of activity. In that time has to be specified. The order of the tribunal has to stand on its own feet. I do not think the tenant is in default in respect of two months rent which he subsequently deposited on 30-5-1983. The tenant cannot be ejected on this score.

(7) Mr. Sabharwal, for the landlady, then says that the tribunal in its order dated 28-5-1983 has not decided about other defaults which were found by the controller. He has drawn my attention to these defaults, namely:-

(1)That there is no deposit of rent on account of. the period from September 1981 to November 1981.

(2)That the tenant did not deposit rent for June 1980 and July 1981 in time.

(8) For the decision on these two alleged defaults, the matter is remitted to the tribunal for its decision. The tribunal will decide whether the tenant is in default in respect of these two items of deposits. There is no other default alleged or argued before me. The question of first deposit in terms of the order under Section 15(1) of the Act dated 5-8-1979 will not be reopened. The parties are directed to appear before Rent Control Tribunal on 14-12-1983.

(9) In terms of the above order the appeal (S.A.O. No. 315 of 1983) and C.M. No. 3215/83 are disposed of.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //