Appeal No 355 of 1981
From the Judgment and Order dated 27101980 of the Delhi High Court in SAO No 241 of 1979
GL Sanghi and SL Aneja for the Appellant
K Parasaran Gopal Subramanium Arvind Verma and Mukul Mudgal for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUNCHHI J
For the view we take in this appeal by special leave and leaning as we would be on our discretion ary power under Article 136 of the Constitution no elabo rate details are necessary of the facts involved therein and for its disposal by a brief order
The appellant Subhash Mehta more than two decades ago obtained a residential lease of the first floor in premises bearing No D 32 South Extension Part II New Delhi from Dr SP Choudhary now dead the landlord who was himself residing on the ground floor thereof
The settled rent was Rs800 per mensem
The landlord on 508 November 27 1972 served a notice on the tenant demanding arrears of rent from September 1 1972 onwards
The demand having not been met he instituted an eviction petition before the Rent Controller Delhi on March 13 1973 on grounds of non payment of rent as also on other grounds
On June 1 1973 the Rent Controller passed an order under section 151 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 hereinaf ter referred to as the Act  directing the tenant to depos it arrears of rent within one month from the date of the order and further to pay month to month rent by the 15th of every calendar month
The appellant within the period allowed deposited Rs 10000 to cover arrears of rent as well as to cover future rent uptill September 15 1973
Thereafter neither on October 15 1973 nor on November 15 1973 did the tenant deposit monthly rent as required by the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller
He was alleged to have defaulted on that count
Yet on December 1 1973 he made a deposit of Rs2800 partly covering the default of the previous period
The landlord took objection to the late deposit and after much debate the Rent Controller struck off the defence of the appellant
The Rent Appellate Tribunal Delhi set aside the order of the Rent Controller striking out the defence of the tenant on appeal by the tenant and remitted the case back to the Rent Controller for further proceedings
Second appeal to the High Court of Delhi by the landlord was dismissed
The Additional Rent Controller who became seisin of the matter on remand went into all the grounds as originally raised in the eviction petition the other grounds besides the tenant being in arrears of rent being sub letting conversion of the user of premises from residential to commercial the tenant having acquired vacant possession of a residential house in M 18 Green Park Extension New Delhi and for bona fide requirement of the daughter of the land lord who being a student of MBBS was expected to set up medical practice
The Additional Rent Controller by his order dated December 12 1978 ordered eviction of the tenant on the sole ground of non payment of future rent in terms of his order passed under section 151 of the Act granting the tenant two months  time to vacate the premises
The other grounds of eviction were rejected
The tenant s appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal centered round the sole question of delayed payment of arrears of rent and of the scope and rigour of section 151 of the Act
In assailing the order of the Additional Rent Controller reliance was placed by the tenant on a judgment of this Court in Hem Chand vs Delhi Cloth Mills to contend that even if the tenant had not strictly complied 509 the terms of the order made under section 151 of the Act in as much as depositing future rent late it was not impera tive in all events of the defence of the tenant being struck off and a fair amount of discretion had been left with the Rent Controller under section 157 which should have been exercised in his favour and before his defence was to be struck off the Rent Controller had to come to the view that his conduct was wilful or contumacious in disobeying the order made under section 151 of the Act and which in the instant case he had failed to record
Even being aware of these principles the Rent Control Tribunal on August 18 1979 dismissed the appeal observing that no infirmity in the order of the Additional Rent Controller could be found
On the same lines and reasoning second appeal of the tenant was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi on October 27 1980 keeping maintained the ejectment of the tenant for non compliance of the order made under section 151 of the Act
This has led to the instant appeal on the grant of special leave
The landlord Dr SP Choudhary as hinted earlier died in the year 1981 during the pendency of this appeal leaving behind a widow and a daughter the latter now being a divor cee rearing a minor son
This is the uncontroversial asser tion of the successor landlords
The eviction order in their favour has been assailed by Mr Sanghi learned counsel for the tenant appellant on the strength of the decision of this Court in Ram Murti vs Bhola Nath and Another stressing the point that the words as required by section 151 of the Act  occurring in sub section 7 of section 15 must be construed in a reasonable manner and that the said provision confers a wide discretion on the Rent Controller not to strike off the defence of the tenant which indicates that defences could still be open to the tenant under the Act to claim plain protection under section 142 thereof
In that case this Court ruled that the Rent Con troller necessarily by legal implication has power to con done the default on the part of the tenant for deposit of future rent or to extend time for such deposit
On the said plea advanced on behalf of the tenant the result sought to be achieved is that the delay in making deposit of future rent be excused saving him from eviction
The tenant had before the Rent Controller while explaining cause for late deposit of future rent put up the plea that the counsel present at the time of the passing of the order under sec tion 151 in place of his engaged counsel had only intimat ed to him about the payment of arrears of rent and not about the deposit of future rent by the 15th of every calendar month
On that basis the order of eviction was sought to be upset by accepting such plea of the tenant
On the other hand learned counsel for the successor landlords 510 tactically took shelter behind the other grounds of eviction which were rejected by the Additional Rent Controller and besides raising them vehemently before us projected that in the facts and circumstances of this case and the subsequent events which have come by this Court should refrain from interfering in the matter under Article 136 of the Constitu tion
On such stance adopted it is plain that the ground on which eviction has been maintained before the Tribunal and the High Court concurrently the successor landlords seeming ly had an uphill task to have it maintained in view of Ram Murti s case supra
Yet without conceding on that score other grounds of eviction were pressed despite opposition by learned counsel for the tenant that these grounds were neither pressed in the court of the Rent Control Tribunal nor in the High Court while supporting the order of eviction and no cross appeals in these two forums were filed by the landlord which if serious he legitimately could
It is true that the Tribunal and the High Court are both silent on the point
The order of the Additional Rent Controller suggests that the tenant is an industrialist
His finding is that within the years 1971 to 1974 he was active in incorporating three companies and that he was a proprietor of Ms Globe Marketing and Management Limited a Director of Ms Sports Equipment Private Limited and again a Director in Ms Indian Consultants Private Limited
His further finding is that while living in the demised premises he had floated these companies and later taken in other directors
In so far as the latter two companies were concerned this act of the tenant was not sub letting assigning or parting with the possession of the disputed premises as held by the Rent Controller
Sequelly the finding further recorded was that there was no misuser of the disputed premises inasmuch as the respective offices run by the companies therein had caused no damage to the premises
With regard to the fact that the tenant had acquired another premises at M 18 Green Park Extension New Delhi the Rent Controller took the view that factually the father of the tenant had acquired the same and the tenant could not live in that premises with his father as a matter of right
Lastly with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord the Rent Controller took the view that the landlord s family comprising of himself his wife and daughter had sufficient accommodation in their possession even though his daughter had to estab lish practice as a doctor
The additional plea of the suc cessor landlords as given out in their counter affidavits now is that the telephone connections standing in the name of afore referred three companies with which the tenant is intimately connected are at the demised premises as per the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Directory 511 and that the tenant is a rich and wellconnected industrial ist deserving no protection of the rent laws misplacedly sought by him
We have pondered over the matter and have weighed every aspect of the case
The facts and circumstances now emerging are that the successor landlords are two ladies one a widow and the other a divorcee
If we were to allow the appeal by releasing and relaxing the rigour of the order of eviction relying on Ram Murti s case we unhesitatingly then would take the step to have the matter remitted back at an appro priate stage where the successor landlords could convenient ly have the other grounds of eviction adjudicated upon and overrule the objection that the landlord could have filed an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal and the High Court seeking eviction of the tenant on grounds other than the ground on which the eviction was ordered
This course however appears to us to be not only unfair and unreasona ble in the facts and circumstances of this case but time consuming and inequitous as well to the successor landlords who as said before are two ladies brought in the fray by operation of law
Now since almost eighteen years have passed by we feel there should be an end to the dispute and this course is in the interest of all concerned as well as the State
Instead of putting the parties to a fresh bout of litigation we would in these circumstances prefer and opt to let remain the order of eviction sustained however on slen der ground and consequently order dismissal of this appeal but without any order as to costs
Still we do not wish to dislocate the appellant abruptly concerned as we are for him also and for that purpose grant him sufficient time ending on March 31 1991 for vacating the premises subject to his giving an undertaking before this Court for vacation on or before the said date but on payment of rent to the landlords as has fallen due for the period uptill and by March 31 1990 and future monthly rent by the tenth of each calendar month
Let the undertaking be filed by March 10 1990 in the Registry in the usual manner
PSS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellants  land was acquired under the Land Acqui sition Act on March 24 1971 for planned development as residential area
They were then running a plant nursery on the said land
A large number of potted plants mother plants and trees also existed there
They demanded compensa tion for the land at the rate of Rs35 per sq
They also claimed compensation for nursery plants potted plants mother plants and trees
The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation in respect of the land at the rate of Rs900 per Biswa
He held that the mother plants and trees were irremovable and as such assessed the value thereof at Rs241576
He also awarded charges for the shifting of potted plants
In re spect of the nursery plants he took the view that the appel lants were not entitled to any compensation as these could be removed from the land and sold
The District Judge enhanced the rate of compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs 10 per sq
and also doubled the compensation for trees and mother plants
The High Court considering the potentiality of the acquired land fixed its value at the rate of Rs 16 per sq
It took the view that the court below was in error in doubling the value of the trees as no case was made out in the evidence recorded and therefore set aside the enhance ment
In these appeals by special leave it was contended for the appellants that the nursery plants if taken out of the land would die after two three days and the appellants had got no other land where they could plant them and keep them alive
It was further contended that the compensation with regard to mother trees had been awarded with 418 out reference to their market price and that the High Court had arbitrarily rejected the enhancement in the said compen sation granted by the District Court
Dismissing the appeals the Court HELD 1
The finding of the Land Acquisition Collector that the nursery plants could be taken out of the land and sold to the customers like potted plants and as such no compensation could be awarded was quite in accordance with law
Sufficient time had been granted by the State by per mitting the appellants to remove these plants from the acquired land
Their claim was therefore rightly rejected by the High Court
422G H D E 2
The land acquired though agricultural land was taken
for assessment of its market value  Rs 16 per sq
not as agricultural laud but as laud with high potentialities ie as urban laud
The appellants did not at all dispute this value
On the other hand they withdrew the entire compensation award for the value of these lands
In these circumstances it could not be said that the value of mother trees has been wrongly assessed as wood
The appellants were therefore not entitled to enhancement In the value of trees
422F G