Harcharan Singh Sethi v. Darbari Lal Batla

1. This petition impugns the judgement & order dated 9.5.2012 and 15.1.2013 passed by the Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal respectively. An application had been moved by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant under Section 14(1)(a) & (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) seeking the payment of rent with respect to shop in property No.A-37, Ground Floor, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. The Trial Court vide order dated 16.8.2011, directed the tenant to pay or deposit the legally recoverable arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.9.2003 till December, 2003, @ Rs.1,330/per month. The arrears were paid as directed and the tenant 2014:DHC:4025 continued to pay further rent till February 2012. However, the Trial Court was of the view that it being the tenant‟s first default he would get the protection of Section 14(2) of the Act.

2. However, subsequently there was a default in payment from March, 2012 onwards. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant for the second default. Accordingly on 9.5.2012, after hearing the arguments, under Section 14(2) of the Act, the Trial Court examined the report of the Naib Nazir and recorded that the tenant had complied with the modified order dated 16.8.2011 but had not paid the rent since March, 2012. There had conclusively been a default of the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act from March, 2012, hence the tenant would not be entitled to the protection of Section 14(2) of the Act for the subsequent default. Accordingly, the Court directed the eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises.

3. This eviction order was challenged by the tenant in appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which result in the impugned order dated 15.1.2013. The Rent Controller was of the view that firstly the appeal was not supported by the certified copy of the impugned order dated 9.5.2012; no exemption from filing of the certified copy was granted; the applicaton for exemption from filing certified copy of the order was never pressed nor was any order obtained on it; the certified copy was filed only on 4.1.2013 hence the Court held that the appeal could be deemed to have been filed only on the said date by which time it was severely barred by limitation, i.e., there had been unaccounted delay of seven (7) months.

4. On the merits of the matter, the Trial Court was of the view that the tenant was under two directions: i.e. payment of arrears of rent from 1.9.2003 till December 2003, which was duly paid; secondly the rent was required to be paid by 15th day of each succeeding month. The said order was passed under Section 15(1) of the Act. The rent was required to be paid for the duration of the tenancy. The Tribunal rejected the argument of the appellant that the rigours of payment of rent by the 15th day of each month was not applicable after the disposal of the main case on 16.8.2011, because the directions were for continued payment of rent till the subsistence of the tenancy. The Tribunal further rejected the appellant‟s argument that the rent deposited twice-over, for the month of December 2003, should have been adjusted against any subsequent default. The Tribunal distinguished the judgement relied upon by the appellant in Sarwan Kumar Onkar Nath Vs. Subhash Kumar Agarawalla AIR 1987 SC 2302 on the ground that in the said case the tenant had paid two months‟ advance rent at the inception of the tenancy with the understanding that it could be set off/adjusted against the rent whenever necessary or required whereas in the present case the adjustment was being sought not for advance payment of rent at the inception of such tenancy but against the rent paid twice over for the month of December, 2003 by error. There was no such understanding of adjusting it in future. The mistake ouoght to have been pointed out. The Tribunal felt that the tenant ought to have rectified his mistake earlier and ought to have sought this adjustment if he so desired. The Tribunal further took into consideration the case of M/s. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ravinder Kumar Suri AIR 2005 SC 15 relied upon by the learned counsel for the landlord which held that discretion under Section 15(7) of the Act connotes necessarily an act of judicial character. Insofar as the tenant had set up a false plea of having sent rent through cheques to the landlord, it was held to be a relevant fact for exercising discretion. The non-payment of the rent resulted in the Court not exercising the discretion in favour of the tenant. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the same arguments as raised before the Tribunal and seeks quashing of the two orders impugned in this petition. In support of his contention he relied upon C. Ronald & Anr. Vs. Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands (2011) 12 SCC 428 to contend that the tenant would still have the protection of Section 14(2) of the Act. He relies upon para 7 of the aforesaid judgement, which reads as under:

6. The said judgement indeed makes it clear that where the words of statute are clear there is no scope for the court to innovate upon the statutory provisions. Section 14(2) of the Act reads as under: