MANOHAR LAL Vs. PREM NATH GERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the impugned judgment dated 26.4.2011 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal which has directed eviction of the Appellants/tenants under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act), which is a provision for eviction for non-payment of rent. An order for eviction is passed under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, if the tenant fails to comply with the order of deposit of rent under Section 15(1) of the Act. In a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act eviction is not ordered and benefit is given of the provision of Section 14(2) of the Act by denying the right of eviction to the landlord only if the tenant complies with the order to deposit the rent under Section 15(1) of the Act.

(2.) The facts of the case are that an order was in fact passed under Section 15(1) of the Act on 24.07.2002. As per this order dated 24.7.2002, the arrears were to be paid and future rent month by month was to be paid/deposited. The admitted facts are that this order was complied with only till January, 2006 and from February, 2006 till the passing of the eviction order by the Additional Rent Controller on 27.07.2009, the order was not complied with.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the Petitioners sought to argue that the original tenant died and thereafter, the legal heirs did not deposit/pay the rent on an advice that the legal heirs do not have to comply with an order Under Section 15(1) of the Act. The admitted position, therefore which emerges is that right from February, 2006 till July, 2009, and which is indeed not a short period, the Petitioners/legal heirs of the original tenant did not pay any rent. The law in this regard is well settled that on mere non compliance of the order Under Section 15(1) of the Act it cannot be said that there is a willful default. The issue was examined at length by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath and Anr., 1984 AIR(SC) 1392. In the judgment of Ram Murti the Supreme Court clarified the position that merely because there is any default, would not automatically mean that the tenant will not be liable to the benefit of the protection of Section 14(2) of the Act against eviction. The Supreme Court gave various examples that the rent may not be deposited pursuant to the order under Section 15(1) of the Act because of many exigencies like an accident of the clerk of the lawyer, or some grave illness of the tenant and so on. The Supreme Court therefore clarified the position that there is no automatic denial of the protection under Section 14(2) for the non compliance of Section 15(1) of the Act. In the present case however the admitted position is for no less than around 2 1/2 years, the rent was not paid/deposited by the legal heirs of the tenant. I refuse to believe that legal heirs of tenant can be of a legal opinion that they can continue to stay in the tenanted premises but are not liable to pay the rent although they continued to stay, enjoy and occupy the tenanted premises. To have an opinion that an order under Section 15(1) has not to be complied with is totally different from the fact that legal heirs would always have the knowledge that every tenant is bound to pay rent for the tenanted premises every month for which the tenanted premises are occupied.