Skip to content


Chhabli Das Gupta Vs. Paryagwati - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 230 of 1980
Judge
Reported in19(1981)DLT262; 1981(2)DRJ100; 1981RLR195
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 15(1)
AppellantChhabli Das Gupta
RespondentParyagwati
Advocates: D.P. Gupta,; S.L. Bhatia and; C.L. Arora, Advs
Excerpt:
delhi rent control act, 1958 - section 15(1)--tenant deposited rent afterthe filing of the eviction petition under section 1-8(1) (a) in the court without any order of the controller the controller and the tribunal directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent without adjusting the amount already paid the tenant appeals.; all deposits made in the court of the controller or pay-ments to the landlord after the service of the notice but before the passing of the order under section 15(1) must not be ordered to be deposited again. - - the respondent filed the eviction application on ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of sub-letting i. if the tenant has failed to pay the rent in compliance with the notice of demand within a period of two months, it cannot be said..........20th march, 1980 of the rent control tribunal confirming the order dated 26th january, 1980 of the rent controller by which the appellant was ordered to deposit arrears of rent at rs. 50.00 per month for the period from 1st may, 1979 within one month from the date of the order and continue to deposit further monthly rent by the 15th of the succeeding month. the short question in this appeal is whether the rent, if any, deposited by a tenant in the court where eviction proceedings are pending can be directed to be deposited again by an order under section 15(1) of the act. the respondent-landlord served a notice of demand upon the appellant. it appears that the appellant did not pay the rent as demanded in the notice. the respondent filed the eviction application on ground of non-payment.....
Judgment:

Sultan Singh, J.

(1) This appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on behalf of the tenant is directed against the order dated 20th March, 1980 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dated 26th January, 1980 of the Rent Controller by which the appellant was ordered to deposit arrears of rent at Rs. 50.00 per month for the period from 1st May, 1979 within one month from the date of the order and continue to deposit further monthly rent by the 15th of the succeeding month. The short question in this appeal is whether the rent, if any, deposited by a tenant in the court where eviction proceedings are pending can be directed to be deposited again by an order under Section 15(1) of the Act. The respondent-landlord served a notice of demand upon the appellant. It appears that the appellant did not pay the rent as demanded in the notice. The respondent filed the eviction application on ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of sub-letting i. e. the grounds of eviction mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Act.. The eviction application was filed on 18th August, 1979. It appears that the appellant without any order of the Controller, where the eviction proceedings were pending, deposited Rs. 145/r on 7th September, 1979 and Rs. 174.00 on 15th January, 1980. The Controller and the Tribunal, as already stated, directed the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent for the period from 1st May, 1979. The case of the appellant is that rent was due to the respondent for the period from 1st May, 1979 but as he had already deposited the said sum of Rs. 319.00 the Controller and the Tribunal ought to have given credit for the said amount, while passing an order under Section 15(1) of the Act. Section 15(1) of the Act requires the Controller to pass an order after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant appears to have pressed before the Controller and the Tribunal that he has paid a sum of Rs. 319.00 but still he was not allowed to adjust the same towards the payment of rent. If any amount of rent has already been deposited in the court where the eviction proceedings are pending, it seems to me that the Controller or the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct the tenant again to deposit the said amount. On a reference to the record of the trial court I find that the two deposit receipts dated 7th September, 1979 and 15th January, 1980 for Rs. 145.00 andRs 174.00 respectively are available on the record. The Controller passed the order on 28th January, 1980 but it appears that he has not taken into consideration the said two deposits. Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel for the landlord, submits that the payment can be made by the tenant only either within a period of two months after the service of notice or in accordance with an order that may be passed by the Controller under Section 15(1) of the Act. I do not agree. If the tenant has failed to pay the rent in compliance with the notice of demand within a period of two months, it cannot be said that he has no right to pay or tender subsequently. The landlord may or may not accept rent if tendered after the expiry of two months. If the tenant deposits; the arrears of rent even after the expiry of two months from the date of service of notice of demand in the court where the eviction proceedings are pending, I fail to see how the credit for such deposit cannot be given to him. All deposits made in the court of the Controller where the eviction proceedings are pending or payments made to the landlord after the service of the notice but before the passing of the order under Section 15(1) of the Act must not be ordered to be deposited again. I, thereforee, set aside the impugned order dated 20th March, 1980 of the Tribunal confirming the order dated 28th March, 1980 of the Rent Controller. I pass a fresh order under Section 15(1) of the Act directing the appellant to deposit all arrears of rent for the period 1st May, 1979 at Rs. 50.00 per month after adjusting the said sum of Rs. 319.00 already deposited by him, within one month from today, and continue to deposit future monthly rental the said rate by the 15th of the succeeding month. The appellant is further allowed to adjust the amount, if any, deposited by him in pursuance of the two orders dated 28th January, 1980 and 20th March, 1980. There will be no order as to costs.


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