Dina Nath (D) By Lrs. & Anr vs Subhash Chand Saini & Ors

This indicates that the object underlying the Rent Control Act is to make provision for expeditious adjudication of disputes between landlords and tenants, determination of standard rent payable by tenants and giving protection against eviction to tenants. The premises belonging to the Government are excluded from the ambit of the Rent Control Act which means that the Act has been enacted primarily to regulate the private relationship between landlords and tenants with a view to confer certain benefits on the tenants and at the same time to balance the interest of the landlords by providing for expeditious adjudication of proceedings between landlords and tenant...” (empahasis supplied)

4. Since one of the grounds on which the eviction of the appellants was sought, was on account of non-payment of rent with effect from January, 2007; the Rent Controller passed an order dated 21.4.2008 under Section 15(1) of the Rent Act, requiring the appellants to deposit the undisputed arrears of rent, and to pay future rent. The aforesaid order of the Rent Controller is being extracted hereunder :-

5. On account of the non-compliance of the order dated 21.4.2008, the respondents filed an application under Section 15(7) of the Rent Act on 28.4.2009, praying for striking out the defence of the appellants. The appellants filed a reply to the aforesaid application on 17.8.2009. Before filing the aforesaid reply, on 1.5.2009 i.e., on the very day the appellants came to know of the filing of the application under Section 15(7) of the Rent Act, the appellants deposited rent before the Rent Controller, for the period from November, 2009 to July, 2010. In making the aforesaid deposit, the appellants had mistakenly mentioned that the rent was being deposited from November, 2009, although they ought to have deposited rent from November, 2008. Immediately on realizing the aforesaid mistake, the appellants again deposited rent before the Rent Controller for the period from November, 2008 to October 2009 on 5.5.2009.

6. For an effective determination of the controversy before us, it is essential to extract herein the factual position indicated by the appellants in their reply dated 17.8.2009 (to the application filed by the respondents under Section 15(7) of the Rent Act). Accordingly, paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 of the abovementioned reply, are being reproduced hereunder :-

18. The instant controversy actually demonstrates how a tenant has effectively frustrated the legislative intent contemplated in Section 15(7) of the Rent Act. The legislative purpose was, to curb tendencies of tenants, from abusing the legal process. As already noticed hereinabove, the respondents-landlords filed an eviction petition in November, 2007. Based on the non-compliance of the directions issued by the Rent Controller (on 21.4.2008), the respondents-landlords moved an application on 28.4.2009, praying for striking out the defence of the appellants-tenants. After the appellants-tenants filed their reply on 17.8.2009, the Rent Controller allowed the above application, and struck off the defence of the appellants-tenants, by an order dated 14.9.2009. The order of the Rent Controller dated 14.9.2009 was assailed by the appellants-tenants before the Rent Control Tribunal. The prayer made by the appellants-tenants was rejected by the above Tribunal on 21.4.2010. The appellants-tenants then approached the High Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the petition on 10.5.2011. The said order was assailed by filing a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal. The matter has been pending disposal in this Court ever since. The appellants-tenants, despite their contumacious disobedience, of the directions contained in the order of the Rent Controller dated 14.9.2009, have frustrated the process of law successfully, for about five years (from 28.4.2009, i.e., the date on which the application under Section 15(7) of the Rent Act was filed, till the disposal of the present Civil Appeal). The tenants have achieved, what the legislation aimed to avoid.

17. In the result, I allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the Courts below and dismiss the petition filed by the respondent-landlords under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act leaving it open to the petitioner to make good his offer by enhancing the rent voluntarily by ten times the current rent and depositing the future rent for a period of five years, as offered by him, in advance. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

7. By an order dated 14.9.2009 the Rent Controller allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 15(7) of the Rent Act, and thereby, struck off the defence of the appellants in the pending eviction petition. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Rent Controller, the appellants approached the Rent Control Tribunal. By an order dated 24.5.2010, the Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants. Dissatisfied, the appellants approached the High Court of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the appellants assailed the order passed by the Rent Controller dated 14.9.2009, as well as, the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 24.5.2010. The High Court dismissed the petition filed under Article 227 on 10.5.2011. It is, therefore, that the appellants approached this Court, by filing a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) no. 26941 of 2011, wherein we have now granted leave.

19. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered view, that the order passed by the Rent Controller dated 14.9.2009, which was upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal (on 24.5.2010) and the High Court (vide order dated 10.5.2011) calls for no interference whatsoever.

20. For the reasons recorded hereinabove the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

…………………………..J. (Jagdish Singh Khehar) New Delhi;

April 16, 2014.