HARI SINGH Vs. SIKENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the tenant against the order/judgment dated 8th November, 2006 of the Rent Control Tribunal in appeal preferred by the respondent/landlord. The ground of eviction under consideration is that of default in payment of rent i.e under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Rent Controller gave benefit to the tenant of Section 14 (2) of the Act. On appeal by the landlord, the Tribunal has held the petitioner/tenant not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act and consequently passed an order of eviction of the petitioner/tenant.

(2.) The factual matrix is in a narrow controversy. The ground of eviction being under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act, an order under Section 15(1) of the Act was passed by the Rent Controller on 25th May, 2000 directing payment of rent at the rate of Rs.1,500/- p.m. At the time of final decision on the petition for eviction on 20th March, 2003 the Rent Controller while holding a ground of eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act to have been made out modified the order under Section 15 (1) of the Act, directing the payment instead of at the rate of Rs.1,500/- p.m. as earlier ordered, at the rate of Rs.1,650/- p.m. The petitioner/tenant was directed to deposit at the rate of Rs.1,650/- less the amount already deposited, within one month of the said order.

(3.) The petitioner/tenant on 17th April, 2003 i.e. a few days prior to the expiry of one month given in the order dated 20th March, 2003 (supra), applied to the Rent Controller for extension of time for paying the arrears. The said extension was sought on the ground of the old age of the petitioner/tenant. The Rent Controller vide exparte Order dt. 17/04/2003 allowed the petitioner/tenant to deposit the arrears in two equal installments with the first installment being payable by 28th April, 2003. The said order was made in the absence of the counsel for the respondent/landlord. The first installment was paid on 24-04-2003. However, the counsel for the respondent/landlord appeared on 28th April, 2003 and contended that it was not permissible for the rent controller to extend the time under Section 15 (1) of the Act for payment. The petitioner/tenant in the mean while paid the second installment on 7th May, 2003. The application of the petitioner/tenant for extension of time was decided vide order dated 9th May, 2003. The Controller held that since vide order dated 17th April, 2003 the Controller had already extended time for payment of arrears with the first installment being payable on or before 28th April, 2003 and which had been paid on 24th April, 2003 and the entire arrears had been deposited by 7th May, 2003, the action of the court could not harm the petitioner/tenant. It was thus held that though the arrears of rent had not been deposited within one month of 20th March, 2003, but had been deposited on 24th April, 2003 and 7th May, 2003, but the default in payment within time could not be said to be contumacious and willful. The Controller thus held the petitioner/tenant entitled to the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act.