Skip to content


Murari Lal Verma Vs. Nanak Chand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 308 of 1973
Judge
Reported in23(1983)DLT195; 1983(4)DRJ30
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)
AppellantMurari Lal Verma
RespondentNanak Chand
Advocates: P.S. Mahendra,; S.N. Gupta,; S.K. Gupta and;
Cases Referred and Madan Lal v. Hakam Chahd and
Excerpt:
.....entitled to avail of the benefit under section 14(2) of the act. thus it must be held that the appellant was not entitled to protection under section 14(2) of the act although he had deposited arrears of rent hut failed to deposit future monthly rent i dealt with such a matter in m/s......55.00 per month. the appellant in his reply dated 11th january, 1971 (ex. a-2) stated that he had paid rent up to 30th september, 1969, that he had carried out electricity work in the property of the respondent for which he submitted a bill for rs. 563.05 and had not been paid, that a sum of rs. 45.00 was paid as advance rent, and thus a sum of rs. 217.00 only was due to the landlord as rent for the period ending 31st december, 1970. the appellant neither paid nor tendered any amount within a period of two months of tht receipt of the notice.(3) the respondent on 4th january, 1972 filed the petition claiming eviction under section 14(l)(a) of the act alleging the rent was due at rs. 55.00 per month with effect from 1st october, 1969 which the appellant neither paid nor tendered in spite.....
Judgment:

Sultan Singh, J.

(1) In this second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), the appellant- tenant challenges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dated 14th September, 1973 affirming an appeal the order of eviction passed by the Additional Rent Controller under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act against him on 28th July, 1973.

(2) Briefly the facts are that the appellant was a tenant under the respondent in a shop of the property at 13/5, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 55.00 . The respondent served a notice dated 1st January 1971 (Ex. A-l) demanding Rs. 880.00 arrears of rent for the period from 1st September, 1969 to 31st December, 1970 at Rs. 55.00 per month. The appellant in his reply dated 11th January, 1971 (Ex. A-2) stated that he had paid rent up to 30th September, 1969, that he had carried out electricity work in the property of the respondent for which he submitted a bill for Rs. 563.05 and had not been paid, that a sum of Rs. 45.00 was paid as advance rent, and thus a sum of Rs. 217.00 only was due to the landlord as rent for the period ending 31st December, 1970. The appellant neither paid nor tendered any amount within a period of two months of tht receipt of the notice.

(3) The respondent on 4th January, 1972 filed the petition claiming eviction under section 14(l)(a) of the Act alleging the rent was due at Rs. 55.00 per month with effect from 1st October, 1969 which the appellant neither paid nor tendered in spite of notice dated 1st January, 1971. In the written statement the appellant pleaded that a sum of Rs. 590.80 was due to him on account of electricity work carried out by him at the request of respondent ; Rs. 45.00 wai paid as advance rent ; another sum of Rs. 500.00 was paid to him towards rent, and he was entitled to adjust one month's rent on account of white-washing, repairs etc. carried out by him after reply notice dated 11th January, 1971. The respondent in his replication denied that the appellant carried out any electricity work or that he paid advance rent of Rs. 45.00 or that he ever carried out any white washing or repairs in the premises. He however, admitted that a sum of Rs. 500.00 was received by him by cheque. The date of payment of Rs. 500.00 is not pleaded by either party. The learned counsel for the paties however state at the bar that the amount was paid by means of two cheques of Rs. 300.00 and Rs. 2UO.00 inJuly 1971. The Additional Rent Controller on 4th April, 19 72 passed an order under section 15(1) of the Act directing the appellant to deposit all arrears of rent at Rs. 55.00 per month with effect from 1st October, 19b9 after adjusting Rs. 590.80 on account of alleged electricity works, Rs. 45.00 on account of alleged advance rent paid and 500.00 admittedly received by the respondent total Rs. 1135.20, within one month and continue to deposit future monthly rent at the said rate by the fifteenth of the succeeding month. The appellant's counsel states that a sumofRs.569.20was deposited on 12th May 1972 and Rs. 275.00 on 19th September, 1972 in pursuance of the order dated 4th Aptil, 1972 passed under section 15(1) of the Act. The appellant admits that he did not deposit any other amount. The respondent filed an application for striking off the defense of the appellant. Admittedly rent was not deposited by him. The defense of the tenant was struck off. After recording evidence the Additional Rent Controller passed the order of eviction on ground of non-payment. As the appellant had not complied with the order passed under section 15(1) of the Act, he was not given benefit of section 14(2) of the Act. The appellant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which was dismissed on 14th September, 1973. Hence this second appeal.

(4) The learned counsel for the tenant-appellant submits that rent demanded in notice dated 1st January, 1971 stood paid to the landlord by adjustment or otherwise before the institution of the eviction petition and thereforee the respondent had no cause of action and if he had any it was waived by acceptance of Rs. 500.00 as rent in July 1971. He further submits that arrears of rent were duly deposited in pursuance of the order dated 4th April, 1972 passed under section 15(1) of the Act and there was default only in depositing future monthly rent) and as such the appellant was not liable to eviction under section 14(2) of the Act.

(5) The admitted facts are that the appellant was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 55.00 . He received the notice of demand dated 1st January, 1971 requiring him to pay rent 880.00 for the period from 1st September, 1969 to 31st December, 1970 at Rs. 55.00 per month. In reply dated 11th January, 1971 he admitted that a sum of Rs. 217.00 was due after claiming certain adjustments. It is also admitted that he neither paid nor tendered any amount within two months of the receipt of the notice. In fact there is no plea in the written statement either of payment or tender of any amount within a period of two months of the receipt of notice. The only plea was that he paid Rs. 500.00 to the respondent besides other adjustments. This amount was paid in July 1971. As the appellant neither paid nor tendered even the amount of rent Rs. 217.00 admittedly due from him within a period of two months from the receipt of notice, cause of action accrued to the respondent to seek his eviction under section 14(l)(a) of the Act. The eviction petition was filed on 4th January, 1972 and an order under section 15(1) of the Act was passed on 4th April, 1972. It is admitted that the said order for deposit of arrears of . rent and future rent was not complied with. There were thirteen defaults in depositing future monthly rent. In view of the failure of the appellant to comply with the order passed under section 15(1) of the Act, he Was not entitled to avail of the benefit under section 14(2) of the Act. This legal position stands settled by various judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court. In Hem Chand v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., Air 1977 S.C. 1981 it has been held that the Rent Control Authorities have no dis- cretion to extend the time prescribed under section 15(1) of the Act. It has also been held by this Court in Smt. Darshan Devi v. Vidya Nath, 1969 R.C R. 478, Mumhi Lal v. Thakur Prem Chand, 1970 R.C.J. 496, Devi-Dayalv. Mst.Zamani Begum, 1975 R.C.J. 332 and Madan Lal v. Hakam Chahd and others, 1977(2) R.C.J 643 that in order to obtain benefit under section 14(2) of the Act a tenant is required to comply with the order passed under section 15 of the Act. In other words it has been held that a tenant is required not only to deposit arrears of rent but also the future monthly rent in accordance with the order passed under section 15 of the Act. Thus it must be held that the appellant was not entitled to protection under section 14(2) of the Act although he had deposited arrears of rent hut failed to deposit future monthly rent I dealt with such a matter in M/s. The Jain Motor Car Company, v. Mrs. Swayam Prabha Jain and another, S.A.O. 125 of 1978 decided on 19th August, 1982 and ha.d held that a tenant was not entitled to protection Under section 14(2) of the Act if he had committed default in depositing future monthly rent in pursuance of the order passed under section 15(1) of the Act.

(6) The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the notice of demand was issued on 1st January. 1971. that he paid Rs. 500.00 in Julv 1971, that he was entitled to adjust Rs. 563.05 on account electricity work; Rs.45.00 on account of advance rent; and one month's rent on account of repairs and thereforee no rent claimed in notice remained due to the respondent on the date when he filed the eviction petition. He submits that the respondent had no cause of action on the date when he filed the eviction. He submits that the respondent had no cause of action on the date of institution of the eviction petition and in any-case he waived the ground of eviction by accepting Rs. 500.00 in July 1971. His argument is that as the respondent landlord accepted Rs. 500.00 towards rent demanded in the notice dated 1st January, 1971, he is not entitled to claim eviction. I do not agree. Firstly there no plea of waiver or estoppel in the written statement and secondly the cause of action under section 14(1)(a) of the Act accrued when the tenant neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the receipt of notice of demand. According to his own reply dated 11th January, 1971 (Ex. A-2) a sum of Rs. 217, was due towards rent which was neither paid nor tendered within two months of the receipt of notice to the respondent. If the tenant had paid or tendered the whole of arrears of rent within two months of notice cause of action would not have accrued to the landlord I am also of the opinion that if a landlord accepts partly the amount of rent due before the institution of eviction petition, he does not waive his right to claim eviction on the ground of non payment of rent. Once cause of action under section 14(1)(a) of the Act accrues against the tenant, he can claim protection only under section 14(2) of the Act by complying with the order passes under section 15 of the Act. I, thereforee, do not find any substance in the plea of the appellant. This appeal is thereforee dismissed with no order as to costs.


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