SHRI B. S. BHAMBRI Vs. S. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sections 14 and 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) are the core of the Act and their most important aspects fall to be considered in this case.

(2.) The petition for eviction by the appellant landlord was based solely on ground (a) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Act, namely, the non-payment of arrears of rent by the tenant. The tenant admitted the non-payment of the arrears of rent and made no real defence to the petition. He prayed in the written statement for fixation of standard rent but this prayer had no meaning as it was long barred by limitation. The Controller passed an order under section 15(1) of the Act on 10-6-1964 requiring the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 436/- upto the end of Aug. 1963 and thence forward monthly rent at Rs. 46/- per month within one month from the date of the order and future rent at the same rate on the 15th of each following month. The next hearing of the case was fixed for 28th July 1964. The tenant deposited the rent under section 15(1) in the Court on 28-7-1964. He pleaded that he was hard of hearing and had misunderstood the order under section 15(1) and had thought that the deposit had to be made by 28-7-1964. The Controller hold that the tenant had been under a bonafide mistake and that the default or delay by a few days on his part was not wilful. The one month's time allowed by the order under section 15(1) expired on 10-7-1964 when the Court was closed for summer vacation. The Court reopened on 16-7-1964 and the tenant could have made the deposit then but made it on 23-7-1964, I was not his intention not to pay the rent. The Controller, therefore, held that it was not a fit case in which the defence of the tenant against eviction should be struck off. As the tenant had paid the full rent under section 15 (1), the Controller give him the benefit of section 14 (2) of the Act and dismissed the eviction petition. The decision of the Controller was upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal by observing that the use of the word 'may' both in the proviso to section 14(1) and section 15(7) of the Act suggested that the Controller had a discretion in ordering the tenant's eviction on the ground of delay in depositing the rent and also in striking off the defence under section 15 (7). He was, therefore, inclined to condone the delay of fourteen days on the part of the tenant in depositing the rent under section 15(1).

(3.) The sole question for decision, therefore, is 'what is the effect of delay on the part of the tenant in depositing the rent under section 15(1) of the Act ? In answering this question the provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the Act have to be considered.