Skip to content


S. Kuldip Singh Johar Vs. V.D. Narang - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 112 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1982Delhi285; 21(1982)DLT389; 1982(3)DRJ203; 1982RLR310
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)
AppellantS. Kuldip Singh Johar
RespondentV.D. Narang
Cases ReferredKapoor v. Dr. Mrs. P.D. Lal
Excerpt:
delhi rent control act 1958 - section 14(l)(a) the amount claimed has to be as in the notice of the demand and not any arrears of rent which became due after the notice of demand. if the tenant pays the amount legally recoverable as referred to in the notice of demand he has complied with the notice. - - the tribunal dealt with this aspect of the matter in paragraphs 14 and 15 of its judgment dated 28th march, 1980. it will be noticed that the learned additional rent controller as well as the learned tribunal passed the order on the basis of averments contained in paragraph 10(i) of the written-statement......related to arrears of rent for the period 15.6.1973 to 14.7. 1973 thus, there is no infirmity in the tender made by the tenant lt would have been a different mater if, as in the present case. the arrears of rent claimed were for two months and the landlord declined to accept the tender of rent piecemeal but here, we find that no grievance was made about the tender of rent for the period 1557310 14673 ie the landlord accepted piecemeal tender and when the tender was again made for the rest of the period there was no legitimate ground to refuse it.
Judgment:

(1) The landlord gave a notice of demand dated 16th July, 1972, received by the tenant on 23.7.1972, claiming arrears of rent from 15th May, 1973 to 14th July 1973 at the rate of Rs. 175 per month. The month of tenancy was from 15th day of the month to 14th day of the month following. The tenant paid the rent for the period :

FROM15.6.73 to 14.7.73 by cheque dt. 17.8.73 from 15 7 73 to 14.8.7 by cheque dt. 15.9.73 from 158.73to 14.9.73 by cheque dt. 14.10.73 from 15.9.73 to 14.10.73 by M.O. on 19.11.73

(2) The landlord filed on 4.10.1973 the eviction petition pleading that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 15 6.73. The Additional Rent Controller passed the eviction order holding as follows :-

BYnotice Ex.A.W 2/2 the respondent was called upon to pay arrears of rent we.f. 15.5.73 up to date within aperiod of 2 months. Notice is dated 16 7.73 and it appears to have been served on the respondent on or before 23 7.73. in view of the reply of the respondent A W. 2/3 it is very much apparent that the respondent has not complied with this notice when he sent first cheque for a sum of Rs 175.00 on 17.8.73 rent for the month from 15 7.78 to 14.8.73 had also accrued and similarly subsequent cheque was also for a sum of Rs. 175.00 to escape an order of eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent, it was necessary that the respondent should have sent rent in respect of not only the rent which was demanded but also rent which could have accrued within a period of 2 months up to date of the payment (See S L Kapoor v. Dr. Mrs. P.D. Lal 1975 R.C.R 394. Consequently, the ground of non-payment of rent existed when the petition was filed'.

(3) The learned Additional Rent Controller accordingly passed order of ejectment.

(4) The tenant, dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Addl Rent Controller, went up in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dealt with this aspect of the matter in paragraphs 14 and 15 of its judgment dated 28th March, 1980. It will be noticed that the learned Additional Rent Controller as well as the learned Tribunal passed the order on the basis of averments contained in paragraph 10(i) of the written-statement. In this paragraph, the tenant had specifically averred that rent for the period 15.6.73 to 14.7.73 was paid by cheque dated 17.8.73 for Rs. 175.00 which the landlord willfully did not get encased for ulterior reasons. thereforee, it bails down to this that both, the learned Additional Rent Controller and the Tribunal, proceeded on the assumption that tender was made for the rent for the period 15.6.73 to 147.73. They, however, took the view that this tender was not valid,

(5) Decision The position, thereforee, boils down to this that as per the ejectment application rent due for the month of May, 1973 was not claimed to be in arrears or not having been paid within the time allowed by the notice. What was claimed to be arrears was the rent for the period with effect from 15.6.73 to 14.7.73. Both the courts below have accepted, as stated earlier, that the tender was made by cheque dated 17. 8.1973 before the expiry of the period of notice. This cheque related to arrears of rent for the period 15.6.1973 to 14.7. 1973 Thus, there is no infirmity in the tender made by the tenant lt would have been a different mater if, as in the present case. the arrears of rent claimed were for two months and the landlord declined to accept the tender of rent piecemeal But here, we find that no grievance was made about the tender of rent for the period 1557310 14673 ie the landlord accepted piecemeal tender and when the tender was again made for the rest of the period there was no legitimate ground to refuse it.


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