SUNDER LAL Vs. JEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal u/s 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against an order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal refusing stay of further proceedings during the pendency of an appeal against an order passed U/S 15 (1). At first sight, this order seems to be entirely discretionary and also appears to involve no substantial question of law. In addition to the circumstances in which the stay order had been refused, it may also be mentioned that earlier the appellant had applied for stay of the order under appeal but stay was refused. The question for consideration is whether the Rent Control Tribunal was right in refusing the stay of further proceedings before the Controller, and whether this appeal is maintainable.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points of law involved in this appeal it is necessary to refer to the scheme of the Rent Control Act in respect of eviction petitions U/S 14 (1) (a) of the Act. In such a case, the landlord alleges that the tenant has not paid or tendered arrears of rent in spite of the service of a notice of demand in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. A similar provision was also in the Acts of 1947 and 1952. The way in which the tenant could avoid an ejectment order under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1947 was that he had to deposit the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing along with the costs of the suit. The provision was altered in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1952 whereby U/S 13 (2) the said arrears could be deposited either on the first date of hearing or within such further time as may be allowed by the Court. This provision has been replaced by Sections 14 (2) and 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Now the tenant does not have to pay the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing but has to 409 410 await the passing of a specific order U/S 15 (I) which sub section permits the Controller to determine the quantum of arrears and enables him to order the deposit of those arrears within one month and subsequent monthly rent by the 15th day of the succeeding month and so on. If such a deposit is made then Section 14 (2) provides that ejectment on this ground will not be ordered. Therefore, the trial of an eviction petition brought U/S 14(1) (a) involves in the first stage the passing of an order U/S 15(1) and if such an order is complied with then the tenant avoids ejectment U/S 14 (2). Here, again there is a proviso that this advantage cannot be availed by the tenant on more than one occasion. If the tenant defaults for a further period of three months in paying the rent he cannot avoid ejectment by resort to Section 14 (2). Therefore it will be seen that the passing of an order U/S 15 (1) is a part and parcel of the trial of an eviction petition brought U/S 14 (1) (a). The first stay application made by the appellant was for the stay of the order U/S 15(1) which was rightly disallowed by the Rent Control Tribunal, because by not complying with the order, the tenant would gain time without paying any rent. The second stay application moved by the appellant is for a different purpose. It is a for the stay of further proceedings. The question may well be be asked what is the nature of these further proceedings ?

(3.) The next stage in the proceedings is that either an eviction order has to be passed u/s 14(1) (a) or the defence has to be struck off u/s 15 (7) (this is on the assumption that the order u/s 15(1) has not been complied with). If this second stage is reached then another appealable order will have been passed by the Rent Controller leading to yet another appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. Assuming that again the Tribunal does not stay the proceedings, there may be a third order, i. e. the ejectment order leading to yet another appeal. The result will be that in spite of one appeal u/s 15 (1) having been filed the Tribunal will be dealing with two extra appeals one against the order u/s 15 (7) and one against the substantive order allowing or disallowing ejectment. The substantial question of law involved in this appeal is that the Tribunal by refusing stay of further proceedings, really permits more orders to be passed leading to more and more appeals, which the Tribunal can avoid if the consequences of the order, u/s 15 (1) are stayed temporarily during the pendency of the appeal against that order. In the present case the Tribunal has merely said that the order u/s 15 (I) is not complied with, so there is no ground for stay. In fact, the appellant's counsel says that the order has been complied with in the sense that certain deposits of rent have been made, though this fact is not admitted by the counsel for the landlord. Now assuming that the appeal by the tenant before the Rent Control Tribunal fails no harm will have been done by the refusal of a stay order. But assuming the other way that the appeal succeeds in the end what will be the consequences ? The result will be that the order u/s 15 (1) will be invalid. Consequently the order passed u/s 15 (7) will also become invalid (if such an order is passed) and lastly the eviction order, if any, passed will also become invalid. In fact if the appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal succeeds, the case will have to be remanded back to the Rent Controller for de novo proceedings. All this will lead to so many practical difficulties as be of no benefit to any one. It will waste the valuable time of the Controller as well as of the Tribunal. Therefore, from every practical angle stay should have been granted either fully or in a limited sense. The limited sense could be that the passing of the order u/s 15 (7) could be stayed till the decision of the appeal against the order u/s 15(1). However, the proceedings can go on the merits and the ejectment petition can be decided on all the other points. In fact, this is the type of appeal which should be decided most expeditiously by the Tribunal because the appeal u/s 15 (1) is closely concerned with the manner in which the trial can go on further before the Controller. If the Tribunal does not decide the appeal and does not pass a stay order regarding further proceedings, there will be many complications at a later date.