S K CHATTERJEE Vs. J N GHOSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the pendency of the application for ejectment the Rent Controller proceeded to decide the question of deposit of rent under section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and directed the tenants to deposit Rs. 2,750.00 on account of arrears of rent for the period ended July, 1965, and future rent at the rate of Rs. 200.00 per month by the 15th of each following month. Aggrieved by the said order the tenants filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal thought that the Rent Ctroller had directed the tenants under section 15 of the said Act to deposit the arrears and future rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 200.00 per month treating the same as standard rent. 1 he Tribunal was further of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case it was necessary for the Rent Controller to fix an interim rent for the premises and the tenants could be directed to pay the arrears and future rent only at the interim rate so fixed. The Tribunal observed-

(2.) With this observation the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and fixed Rs. 200.00 per mensem as interim rent under section 15 (3) of the said Act. Section 15 (3) of the Act reads as under:

(3.) To my mind it appears that the words "any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant" in sub-section (3) of section 15 refer to the dispute arising between the parties on account of claim of a party for fixation of standard rent. The interim rent fixed under subsection (3) of section 15, in accordance with the said provision, is made adjustable on the basis of the Standard rent ultimately fixed. If the dispute therefore be only as to the quantam and not the standard rent section 15 (3) will, in my opinion, not apply. The artificiality of the other construction may best be demonstrated by the following example. Take a case where there is no controversy about the standard rent and the parties agree that the same is Rs. 100.00 per month. A dispute, however, arises as to the amount due-the landlord claiming Rs. 2,000.00 while the tenant maintaining that he had already paid Rs. 1.000.00 leaving a balance of Rs. l,000.00 only. If that dispute between the parties is held to fall under section 15 (3) the latter part of standard rent will, in that event, be reduced to silence. In that situation it will be impossible to give effect to the latter part of section 15 (3) of the said Act. Sub-section (3) of section 15 in express terms contemplates fixation of an interim rent subject to adjustment on the basis of the standard rent fixed. In the circumstance? in which no such adjustment is possible the controversy appears to be outside the pale of section (3) of section 15 of the said Act. There may yet be another category of cases where the parties are at variance both regarding standard lent and the quantum of rent. In such cases the Controller iray fix an interim rent under section 15 (3) and direct deposit or payment of arrears as well at the intrim rate. It was suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant that in such cases no power inhered in the Controller to order payment or deposit of arrears of rent as section 15 (3) was silent in that behalf. In my opinion "the words, ..to be paid or deposited in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as the case may be..." arc of sufficient amplitude as to confer such a power. If the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants were to be accepted the result would be that by raising disputes as to the standard rent the tenant will be able to avoid payment of arrears of rent. That would defeat the obvious intention of the legislature and the purpose of the Act. If on the other hand there is no dispute about the standard rent and the controversy is about the agreed rate of rent, the order of deposit will necessarily have to be made under section 15 (1) and the rent last paid will he taken as the rate of rent. In short the power to fix interim rent coires into play only when there exists a dispute about standard rent. There is also no merit in Mr Safeer's contention that even when dispute relates to standard rent the power to order deposit of arrears can be exercised only under section 15 (1) on the basis of the rent last paid. Mr Safeer's suggestion is that for ordering payment or deposit of arrears the Controller should have first dertermind the rent last paid about which there was disagreement between the parties and not having done so the order suffered from a serious infirmity. I am afraid I cannot agree. .As I have said earlier section 15 (3) in terms confers power to order payment or deposit of arrears at the interim rate of rent. If the disagreement between the parties be both as to agreed rent and the standard rent, the power will be exercised under section 15 (3) because the standard rent will prevail over the agreed rent.