Pawan Kumar Gupta vs B.R. Gupta

5 Thereafter, parties led their evidence. After the conclusion of the evidence, the Rent Controller allowed the petition by order dated 27.4.2010 under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The Rent Controller held that the tenant has failed to prove that he had tendered the rent to the landlord pursuant to the demand notice dated 19.1.2004 and thus the tenant is guilty of non-payment of rent within the ambit of Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. While passing the said judgment the Rent Controller directed the Nazir to submit a report for the purpose of consideration of entitlement of the tenant to the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act. The matter was taken up by the Rent Controller on 6.7.2010 on which date the Rent Controller perused the Nazir’s report who stated that the tenant even failed to deposit the rent regularly in compliance of the said order under Section 15(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Rent Controller by an order dated 6.7.2010 held that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act and passed eviction order under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The tenant challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, North Delhi (for short ‘Tribunal’). The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal on 12.1.2011 whereby the matter was remanded to the Rent Controller.

6 Pursuant to the order dated 12.1.2011 passed by the Tribunal, the Rent Controller allowed the tenant to record examination of two witnesses. He was also permitted to mark certain documents. The Rent Controller after hearing the parties, allowed the petition by order dated 5.7.2011 under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act by holding that the tenant failed to pay the rent despite service of demand notice and committed default within the meaning of Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent from 1.4.2001 @ Rs.500/- p.m. along with interest @ 15% p.a. Accordingly, the earlier order dated 7.2.2005 passed under Section 15(1) of the Act was modified. Nazir of the court was directed to submit report for consideration of the entitlement of the tenant to the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act.

7 Nazir submitted a report whereby it was found that the tenant had been guilty of non-compliance of the order dated 7.2.2005 passed under Section 15(1) of the Act. The tenant took the stand that since he had complied with the final judgment dated 5.7.2011, the tenant is entitled to the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Rent Controller by an order dated 24.8.2011 held that the tenant has failed to provide any explanation regarding delay in depositing of rent month by month in terms of the order dated 7.2.2005. Thus he is not entitled to the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act. Therefore, the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller against the tenant under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.

8 The appeal filed by the tenant challenging the said order of the Rent Controller before the Rent Control Tribunal was allowed on 24.2.2012. The landlord challenged the said order before the High Court of Delhi in C.M. Main No.415 of 2012. The High Court by order dated 01.12.2014 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored the order passed by the Rent Controller. The tenant has called in question the legality and correctness of the said order in this appeal. 9 Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-tenant argues that the order dated 7.2.2005 passed under Section 15(1) of the Act was modified by a later order dated 5.7.2011 wherein a direction was issued to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent along with interest @15% p.a. within one month from the date of the said order. This order has been complied with by the tenant. Thus order dated 7.2.2005 has merged with the order dated 5.7.2011. Secondly, it is argued that the High Court has placed reliance in Hem Chand etc. etc. v. The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. Etc. etc.[1]. This judgment has been impliedly overruled in Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas[2] whereby this Court has held that the Rent Controller is vested with the discretionary power to condone the default and extend the time for deposit of the rent. This position has been recognized by this Court in Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath and Anr.[3] whereby it was held that the Rent Controller has power to condone the default on the part of the tenant in making payment or deposit of the future rents. In the light of the judgment in Ram Murti (Supra), the High Court ought to have condoned the delay in payment of the rents. 10 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- landlord submits that the tenant is a contumacious and a willful defaulter of the rents. He had the opportunity to pay the arrears of rent in response to the notice issued under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. Instead of paying the rents he raised a defence that he had paid the rent to the landlord who did not issue any receipt against the same. It was further contended that he had paid Rs.18,000/- towards the rent by way of bank draft from 1.4.2001 to 31.1.2004. That is why the Rent Controller, while considering the case under Section 15(1), directed the tenant to pay the rent @ Rs.500/- p.m. from 1.10.2004 and continue to pay the same at the same rate month by month. The question relating to payment from 1.4.2001 to 30.9.2004 was kept open. The tenant has failed to pay the rent in terms of this order. When the matter was taken up for consideration under Section (14)(1)(a) the court directed the tenant to pay the rent for the aforesaid period. There is no merger of the order dated 7.2.2005 in the order dated 5.7.2011.

16 In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant is granted three months time from today to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent subject to filing of an undertaking before this Court to vacate the premises on or before three months from today. The undertaking shall be filed within two weeks from today.