RAM MURTI Vs. BHOLA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave by the appellant Ram Murti is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated August 10, 1982 dismissing his second appeal under S. 39 and upholding the. judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated August 23, 1977 affirming an appeal against the order of the Second Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated March 8, 1976 and directing his eviction from the suit accommodation under S. 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

(2.) It is common ground that the parties stand in the relation of landlord and tenant. Respondent No. 1 Bhola Nath who is the landlord made an application dated December 18, 1968 claiming eviction of the appellant and respondent No. 2 Basant Lal who is his brother-in-law on the grounds mentioned in S. 14 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act. It was alleged that although the appellant had taken the premises on rent from the Custodian of Evacuee Properties. @ Rs. 18/- per month, he vacated the premises after respondent No. 1 acquired the same and there was a new tenancy created in his favour on March 1, 1961 on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. On an application made by respondent No. 1, the Additional Rent Controller by his order dated February 14, 1969 passed under S. 15 (1) of the Act directed the appellant to deposit rent Rs.18/- per month w.e.f. December 1 1965 and to deposit the future rent at the same rate on the 15th day of each succeeding month. The second Additional Rent Controller by his order dated March 8, 1976 directed the eviction of the appellant on the ground specified under S. 14 (1) (a) on the finding that the appellant had committed a default in not complying with the order dated February 14, 1969 passed by his predecessor under S. 15 (1) and therefore it was not necessary to decide as to what was the agreed rate of rent. On the same day, the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed an application filed by respondent No. 1 under S. 15 (7) of the Act on September 17, 1975 for striking out the defence of the appellant on the ground that he had committed defaults in complying with the order of his predecessor dated February 14, 1969 which had been affirmed in appeal by the Rent Control Tribunal by its order dated March 26, 1970. He came to this conclusion on perusal of the original challans filed by the appellant that all the rents up to April 1975 had been deposited on due dates, but there was delay in depositing the rents for four months, namely, for May, June, July and August 1975 oil due dates. The challans showed that the rents for the months of may and June 1975 had been deposited by him on August 14, 1975 while the rents for July and August, 1975 had been deposited on September 19, 1975. Despite the delay in making deposits of the rents for these months the learned Additional Rent Controller declined to make an order for striking out the defence under S. 15 (7) of the Act on the ground that although the appellant had committed defaults in complying with the order made under S. 15 (1), the defaults will have their legal consequences. Both the appellant and respondent No. 1 again preferred appeals before the Rent Control Tribunal but the appeals were dismissed on August 23, 1977. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Tribunal affirming that of the learned Additional Rent Controller, the appellant preferred a second appeal before the High Court under S. 39 of the Act but the High Court declined to interfere with the order of eviction passed under S. 14 (1) (a). The High Court relying upon the decision of this Court in Hem Chand v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. (1978) 1 SCR 241, held that the Rent Controller had no power to extend the time Prescribed by an order under Sec. 15 (1) which requires the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within one month from the date of the order and future rents by the 15th day of each succeeding month.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on later decision of this Court in Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas (1980) 2 SCR 334 that inasmuch as the Rent Controller has a discretion under S. 15 (7) of the Act not to strike out the defence of a tenant for committing default in making payment or deposit of the rent as required by Sec. 15 (1), he has by necessary implication the power to condone the default in making payment or deposit of future rent falling due after the institution of the proceedings as required under S. 15 (1) and also to extend the time for such payment or deposit.