TEVENDER KUMAR KOHLI Vs. SHANTI DEVI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against the order of the Controller fixing interim rent under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, at Rs. 35/- per month in respect of arrears as well as future rent. It raises an interesting question as to the correct construction of the first and the second parts of sub-section (3) of Section 15. Both the learned lower courts have expressed the view that a document purporting to have been executed by the petitioner-tenant on the 14th of August, 1968 mentions Rs. 35/- per month as the agreed rate of rent. The tenant, however, disputes the rate of rent and avers that the agreed rate of rent was only Rs. 10/- per month. The learned lower courts point out that it is open to the tenant to prove his contention but without prejudice to the merits of the case they have a good basis for the fixation of interim rent at Rs. 35/- per month.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits the following construction of sub-section (3) of Section 15, he says that the first part of sub-section (3) enables the Controller to fix interim rent only for the current and the future period but not in respect of the arrears of rent due before the fixation of the interim rent. The second part of sub-section (3) according to the learned counsel, enables the Controller to order payment of arrears of rent which were due from before the fixation of the interim rent only after the standard rent is fixed.

(3.) I am unable to agree with this contention. It seems to me that the first part of sub-section (3) enables the Controller to fix an interim 'rent in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as the case may be. It is clear that under both sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 15 the Controller can order the tenant to deposit rent not only for the current and the future period but also in respect of the past arrears due from before the order for payment of rent. In my view, the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, are incorporated in the first part of sub-section (3). Therefore, even under sub-section (3), the Controller has the jurisdiction to fix an interim rent not only for the present and the future but also in respect of the past arrears. It is also clear to me that under the second part of sub-section (3) the Controller has the power to make an order for the payment of arrears of rent, if any. This means that it is only if arrears of rent are found due by the tenant to the landlord ' that such an order would have to be made. The reason is obvious. Such arrears are to be calculated on the basis of the standard rent when it is fixed for the first time by the Controller. It is only when the standard rent is higher than the interim rent that such order would have to be made by the Controller. This provision was necessary to prevent the tenant from taking the stand either that the arrears so found due are barred by limitation or that the fixation of standard rent operates only in future.