Vijay Kumar Suri v. Surinder Pal Singh

1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Tenant (hereinafter, “Tenant”) challenging the order dated 21st April, 2018 by which the ld. Trial Court has directed payment of the admitted rent w.e.f. 1st April, 2013 @ Rs. 2,200/- per month. The said order reads as under: - “Counsel for defendant has submitted that the rent amount @ Rs. 2200/- has been deposited in the Court of Rent Controller upto 31st March, 2013 and the copy of receipts were filed on court record on last date. It is further submitted that defendant has been sending money orders but the Plaintiff is deliberately not accepting the same. Proxy Counsel has sought pass over for 12.15 pm for clarification regarding the rent amount deposited before the Rent Controller. Counsel for defendant has submitted that he may not be able to appear at 12.15 pm but court may pass appropriate order after hearing the Counsel for Plaintiff. At 12.15 pm. 2019:DHC:5450 Counsel for Plaintiff has submitted that the defendant has not filed the original receipts but court may pass the order since 1st April, 2013. It is further submitted that however the plaintiff has not received any rent since 01.12.2012. I have considered the submissions. It is admitted by the defendant regarding the rent being Rs. 2200/- whereas higher rent has been claimed by the plaintiff. However, without prejudice to the higher rent the present application under order 15A CPC has been moved by the plaintiff to pay the admitted rent since 01.12.2012. Considering the pleadings along with the copy of receipt regarding payment of rent upto 31.03.2014 before the rent controller and the submissions of the Counsels, the application is allowed since 01.04.2013 and the defendant is directed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 2200/- per month since 01.04.2013 till date and continue to pay such rent on each hearing till disposal of the suit. Put up on 09.05.2018 for payment of the rent accrued till date.”

2. The Tenant approached the ld. ADJ by way of appeal, challenging the said order. Vide order dated 4th June, 2018, the ld. ADJ stayed the order dated 21st April, 2018, subject to deposit of 50% of the total arrears of rent. The said order reads as under: - “Operation of order dated 21.04.2018 is stayed subject to deposit of 50% of total arrear of rent as per the direction of Ld. Trial Court dated 21.04.2018 before next date of hearing i.e. 02.07.2018. Let notice of appeal be issued to the respondent on filing of PF/RC, returnable for 25.08.2018. TCR be called for NDOH. Copy of the order be given dasti.”

3. Ld. counsel for the Tenant submits that the said order has been complied with by the Tenant. However, on 1st August, 2019, the ld. ADJ rejected the Tenant’s appeal on the ground that the same is not maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. Hence, the Tenant challenges the order dated 21st April, 2018 before this Court.

4. Ld. counsels for the parties inform this Court that while the present petition was being preferred by the Tenant, on 16th September, 2019, the ld. Trial Court struck off the Tenant’s defence for non-payment/non-deposit of the arrears of rent.

5. The submission of ld. counsel for the Tenant is that one of the issues which has been framed in the suit relates to the maintainability of the suit, as it is the Tenant’s contention that the suit is barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, “DRC”). Ld. counsel submits that if the suit itself is not maintainable, the order directing deposit of the rent is vitiated and, in fact, the maintainability of the suit itself ought to be decided first.

6. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Respondent/Landlord (hereinafter, “Landlord”) submits that the Tenant’s defence having now been struck off, on account of non-deposit of amounts, the maintainability of the suit no longer requires to be adjudicated.

7. Ld. counsel for the Tenant submits that while directing deposit of arrears of rent since 1st April, 2013, the amounts spent towards the water bill and installation of the meter have not been adjusted.

8. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties and the pleadings on record. A perusal of the plaint shows that the Landlord’s case is that the rent amount was Rs. 4,000/-, exclusive of electricity charges along with enhancements as pleaded in the plaint. In response, however, in the written statement, the Tenant has taken the position that monthly rent was Rs. 2,000/-, which was enhanced to Rs. 2,200/- in January, 2011.

9. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the ld. Trial Court has, on the basis of the plea in the written statement, directed that the Tenant pay the admitted rent to the Landlord.

10. In M/s Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M/s Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that in cases involving Landlords and Tenants, the Landlord cannot be denied enjoyment of the property and also not receive any rent. The observations of the Supreme Court are as under:

11. In the present case, the question as to what is the rent which is due and payable by the Tenant is yet to be adjudicated by the ld. Trial Court. However, in the written statement the admitted position is that the Tenant has stated that the amount of Rs. 2,200/- per month was payable by him. Under these circumstances, the fact that the suit is pending adjudication including on the issue of maintainability does not mean that the admitted rent cannot be directed to be paid to the Landlord.