NONIHAL SINGH versus MAYA DEVI
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 551, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
551
NONIHAL SINGH
v.
MAYA DEVI
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3687-3688 of 2018)
APRIL 05, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 –  Delay in depositing
arrears of rent and mesne profits – Application for extension of
time and condonation of delay – In the instant case, Tribunal granted
eviction decree on 05.04.2014 on the ground of arrears of rent
with direction to the appellant-tenant to vacate the premises within
six months – On writ petition, High Court  ordered tenant to deposit
arrears of rent before 31.12.2017 and mesne profits w.e.f.
01.11.2017 – Appellant could not deposit the arrears of rent within
prescribed time – Application for extension of time to deposit rent
stood dismissed on 15.01.2018 – Meanwhile landlady had filed
application for execution of decree of arrears of rent wherein the
tenant deposited the amount on 12.01.2018 in court and the said
amount was handed over to the landlady on 15.01.2018 and court
recorded full satisfaction of landlady and the file was consigned –
However, High Court dismissed the prayer for condoning the delay
in depositing the amount in writ petition filed by the appellant –
Hence the appeals – Held:  It is true that amount of arrears of rent
as per order dated 01.11.2017 was to be deposited till 31.12.2017
and since the amount could not be deposited, application for
extension of time was filed – High Court did not consider that a
substantial amount in pursuance of order of the High Court
in
execution proceedings was deposited on 12.01.2018 that is before
passing order of the High Court on the application for extension of
time which fact was a relevant fact – Order dated 15.01.2018 was
passed in ignorance of the said fact – Order dated 15.01.2018
does not advance substantial justice and is set aside – Similarly, an
amount of Rs.33000/- was deposited on 15.01.2018 directly in the
bank account of landlady which according to appellant was rent
for 11 months and condonation of delay was sought which was
rejected on 27.02.2018 – The circumstance that in execution
proceedings the amount was deposited and accepted by landlady
   [2018] 5 S.C.R. 551
      551
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
552
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
was a relevant fact for condonation of delay in depositing the amount
– Order dated 27.02.2018 is also set aside – Rent Control.
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – Plea of respondent that
there was non-compliance of Order dated 05.04.2014 as in the said
order after six months from the order, the deposit was to be made
three times of the rent – Held: Plea not sustainable – Order dated
05.04.2014 indicated that the direction was that if the tenant does
not evacuate the premises within 6 months from the date of issue of
certificate of re-possession, he shall be responsible to pay 3 times
rent to the landlady – The order dated 05.04.2014 itself mentions
that the liability to pay three times rent shall accrue after six months
from the date of issue of certificate of re-possession – There is no
material to indicate as to when certificate of re-possession was issued
– Secondly, the order made by the Rent Tribunal as well as Rent
Appellate Tribunal stood superseded by the order of the High Court
dated 01.11.2017 which was passed with the consent of both the
parties – High Court in its order dated 01.11.2017 recorded terms
and conditions for permitting the appellant to continue in occupation
of the premises in question till 30.04.2019 – The terms and conditions
recorded in the order by the High Court are clearly in variance
with the decree of the Rent Tribunal and the Rent Appellate Tribunal
– What was required to be adhered
to are the directions of the High
Court dated 01.11.2017 and not the order of the Tribunal as claimed
for the respondent – Appellant is directed to be put back in
possession of the premises – The appellant shall continue to deposit
the mesne profit as per order of the High Court dated 01.11.2017
and in the event of any default committed by the appellant, it shall
be open for the respondent-landlady to take appropriate
proceedings against the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
Nos. 3687-3688 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 27.02.2018 and 15.01.2018
of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBWMA
No. 80 of 2018 and 9 of 2018 respectively.
Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms.Usha Nandini V., Advs. for the Appellant.
Vedant Singh, Michelle Gomes, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Advs.
for the Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
553
The  Order of the Court was passed by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.  Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been filed by the tenant challenging the
orders dated 15.01.2018 and 27.02.2018 by which High Court of
Rajasthan at Jaipur has rejected the miscellaneous application for
extension of time and miscellaneous application to condone delay in
depositing arrears of rent and mesne profits.   Miscellaneous applications
were filed in Writ Petition No.19029 of 2017 which was earlier disposed
of by the High Court on 01.11.2017.
3. Brief facts to be noted for deciding these appeals are:
 The respondent-landlady filed an application under Section 9 of
the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 on 05.12.2006 before the Rent
Tribunal, Alwar on the ground of default in payment of rent. The Tribunal
vide its judgment dated 05.04.2014 allowed the application of landlady
directing the appellant to handover the vacant possession within six
months. The landlady was also entitled to receive rent from the date of
filing the suit till the date of decision in the form of mesne profit.
  The appeal was filed to the Rent Appellate Tribunal, District
Alwar which too was dismissed on 03.05.2017. The appellant aggrieved
by the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal and Rent Appellate Tribunal
filed  Writ Petition No.19029 of 2017 in the High Court which was
disposed of by the High Court with certain directions. As per order dated
01.11.2017 passed by the High Court the appellant was to deposit arrears
of rent before 31.12.2017 and further mesne profit at the rate of
Rs.3,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.11.2017. The appellant could not deposit
the arrears of rent within time allowed by the High Court.
5. An application was filed by the appellant for extension of time
to deposit the rent which was dismissed on 15.01.2018 by the following
order:
   “The matter comes up on an application for extension of
time to deposit arrears of rent under the order dated
01.11.2017 passed by this Court.
    I am of the considered view that no ground for extension
of time is made out.
 It is accordingly dismissed.”
NONIHAL SINGH v. MAYA DEVI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
6. It is relevant to note that before 15.01.2018, the landlady has
filed application for execution of decree of arrears of rent in which
application the landlady has claimed arrears of rent from 04.09.2003 to
19.03.2017 totaling to Rs.96,997/-. In the execution of decree the amount
was deposited by the appellant on 12.01.2018 in Court in the execution
proceedings. The aforesaid amount was also handed over to the decree-
holder on 15.01.2018 and execution was filed recording full satisfaction.
7. The appellant further made a deposit of Rs.33,000/- on
15.02.2018 in the bank account of landlady claiming to be mesne profit.
Another miscellaneous application was filed by the appellant on
15.02.2018 in Writ Petition No.19029 of 2017 praying for condoning the
delay in depositing the amount which application was also rejected by
the High Court on 27.02.2018 by the following order:
   “Heard the counsel for the applicant and the non-applicant
on the application for condonation of delay in depositing the
arrears of rent/mesne profits in pursuance to the order dated
01.11.2017 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.19029/2017
titled Nonihal Singh vs. Smt. Maya Devi.
   Having heard the counsel for the applicant and the non-
applicant, I am of the considered view that in the facts
obtaining no ground obtains for expanding the time for
depositing the arrears of rent/mesne profits as prayed for.
   The application stands dismissed.”
8.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid two orders, these appeals have
been filed by the appellant. The appeals were taken on 27.03.2018 which
were directed to be listed on 28.03.2018. In the meantime, respondent
claims to have obtained possession of premises in question on 27.03.2018
itself. When the case was taken up by this Court on 28.03.2018, this
Court noticing the submission of the respondent that the possession of
the premises has been taken on 27.03.2018, directed for maintaining
status quo.
9. When the matter was heard on 05.04.2018, learned counsel for
the respondent filed an affidavit annexing judgments of courts below. In
the affidavit, it is stated that the appellant has not deposited the amount
as per order dated 01.11.2017 of the High Court. The respondent refuted
the claim of the appellant that he has deposited the entire arrears of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
555
rent/mesne profits. It was further pleaded that as per order dated
05.04.2014, the appellant was directed to make payment of rent calculated
at three times of the existing rate which has not been complied with.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the records.
11. These two appeals have been filed questioning the two orders
passed by the High Court dated 15.01.2018 and 27.02.1018 by which
orders prayer of the appellant for extension of time to deposit arrears of
rent and condoning the delay in depositing arrears of rent has been
rejected. Whether the High court committed any error in rejecting the
aforesaid applications is the main question to be considered in the present
appeals.
12. The writ petition challenging the order of Rent Tribunal and
the Rent Appellate Tribunal filed by the appellant has been disposed of
on 01.11.2017 with the following directions:
“(i) The petitioner-tenant shall be entitled to continue in
occupation of the tenanted premises in question upto April
30, 2019, but not beyond subject to condition that he would
hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question
to respondent-landlord on or before April 30, 2019.
(ii) The petitioner-tenant shall pay arrears of rent or mesne
profits, if any, till October 31, 2017, as determined by the
courts within a period of two months from today.
(iii) The petitioner-tenant commencing 1st November, 2017
shall pay to respondent-landlords, mesne profits @
Rs.3000/-
per month on or before 10th of each month.
(iv) The petitioner-tenant shall not alienate or otherwise create
third party right, or hand over possession of the tenanted
premises in question to any other person.
     Further, the petitioner-tenant shall submit an undertaking
incorporating the aforesaid conditions before the Rent
Tribunal Alwar, within a period of thirty days, from the date
of this order. In case the petitioner-tenant fails to submit the
undertaking as aforesaid within thirty days from today, and/
or breaches the conditions of this order, the respondents-
NONIHAL SINGH v. MAYA DEVI
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
556
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
landlords shall be entitled to the immediate execution of the
judgment and possession certificate dated 03.05.2017 and
obtain possession of the premises in issue forthwith in
accordance with law. The breach of this order shall also be
liable to be punished as contempt of the court.”
13. The landlady has filed execution application on 25.03.2017
before the Rent Tribunal claiming rent of Rs.96,997/- for the period from
04.09.2003 to 19.03.2017. In execution proceedings, aforesaid amount
of Rs.96,997/- has been deposited by the appellant on 12.01.2018 receipt
of which payment has been filed as annexure P-4. It is also  relevant to
note that in the execution proceedings  dated 15.01.2018 court passed
the following order:
“Decree holder Maya Devi with Advocate Manish Jain
present. The file has been pursued. Mentioned amount
Rs.96997/- in recovery warrant in compliance of O-21 R 30
CPC were handed over to decree holder-Mrs. Maya Devi.
The Advocate of decree holder expressed full satisfaction in
the execution application. In view of full satisfaction into
matter of execution, application is filed with a direction to
consign the record.”
14. On the same date when the execution was filed recording
satisfaction, the High Court rejected the application of the appellant for
extension of time. The order of the High Court does not reflect that as to
whether parties brought into the notice of the Court that in pursuance of
the
execution application amount of Rs.96,997/- has been deposited on
12.01.2018. The High Court exercises the jurisdiction under Article 226
and 227 for the purpose of securing the ends of justice. It is true that
amount of arrears of rent as per order dated 01.11.2017 was to be
deposited till 31.12.2017 and since the amount could not be deposited,
application for extension of time was filed. We have no doubt that had it
been brought in the notice of the High Court that amount of
Rs.96,997/- has been deposited on 12.01.2018, the High Court would
have considered the fact that a substantial amount in pursuance of order
of the High Court in execution proceedings has been deposited on
12.1.2018  that is before passing order of the High Court on the application
for extension of time which fact was a relevant fact and the order dated
15.01.2018 has been passed in ignorance of the said fact. We are satisfied
that order dated 15.01.2018 does not advance substantial justice. Further,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
557
after depositing Rs.96,997/-, a further amount of Rs.33,000/- was
deposited on 15.02.2018 directly in the bank account of landlady receipt
of which has been filed as Annexure P-6 which according to the appellant
is rent for 11 months at the rate of Rs.3,000/- subsequent to the period
which was included in the execution application. After depositing amount
of Rs.33,000/- another miscellaneous application being No.80 of 2018
was filed praying for condonation of delay in depositing the amount. On
27.02.2018 when application was taken both the amounts, i.e.,
Rs.96,997/- and Rs.33,000/- covering mesne profits upto February, 2018
were deposited.  Copy of the Misc. Application No.80 of 2018 has been
brought on record as Annexure P-3. In paragraph 5 of the application
there is an averment regarding deposit of amount of Rs.96,997/- which
was claimed to have been withdrawn by the respondent on 15.01.2018.
Copy of the order sheet of the trial court was also annexed. Further, the
amount from 20.03.2017 to 31.10.2017 and thereafter till February, 2018
was also claimed to be deposited which averment has been made in
paragraph 6 of the application. It was also mentioned that the earlier
application was dismissed on 15.01.2018. A perusal of the High Court’s
order dated 27.02.2018 does not indicate that the Court has referred to
the above mentioned averments in the application.
15. In the subsequent application, prayer was made for condoning
the delay in depositing the
amount. The deposit had already been made
by the appellant which was also accepted by the respondent which is
clear from the order of the Trial Court dated 15.01.2018 as noted above.
The circumstance that in execution proceedings the amount has been
deposited and accepted by the landlady was a relevant fact for
condonation of delay in depositing the amount. The power and jurisdiction
of the High Court vested under Sections 226 and 227 is for the purpose
of securing ends of justice. In the facts of the present case, the High
Court vide its order dated 01.11.2017 has already permitted the appellant
to continue in occupation of the tenanted premises in question upto
30.04.2019.
16. It is true that there was delay in depositing the arrears of rent
by the tenant as per order dated 01.11.2017 but subsequently in execution
proceedings deposits were made and further deposits were made in the
bank  account  covering  the  period  upto February, 2018, which  facts
were  not  adverted  to  by  the  High Court while rejecting the application
for condonation of delay in deposit.
NONIHAL SINGH v. MAYA DEVI
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the deposit
made by the appellant is not in accordance with the order dated
05.04.2014. It is submitted that in the order dated 05.04.2014 after six
months from the order, the deposit was to be made at rate of three time
of the rent. Order dated 05.04.2014 which is referred by the learned
counsel for the respondent is to the following effect:
“
-: Order :-
  Eventually petitioner’s this petition suit under Section 9 of
the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 accepting against
respondent with cost is decreed this way that respondent/tenant
shall handover the disputed rented premises whose complete
detail is described in para 3 of main petition suit by
evacuating premise’s empty hold within 6 months from the date
of decision to the petitioner/landlord.
  In the determined duration in the situation of giving the
possession of the premises to the petitioner by respondent
petitioner shall receive normal due rent till the receiving of
the possession. If the tenant does not evacuate the premises
within 6 months from the date of issue of certificate of
re-possession then he shall be responsible to pay 3 times rent
to the petitioner from the determined rate of due rent in the
form of mesne profits from the date of issue of certificate of
re-possession.
  Petitioner shall have right to receive rent from the date of
filing suit till date of decision according to rule in form of
mesne profit.”
The perusal of the said order indicates that the direction was that
if the tenant does not evacuate the premises within 6 months from the
date of issue of certificate of re-possession, he shall be responsible to
pay 3 times rent to the landlady.
18. There are two reasons due to which the above submission of
the respondent cannot be accepted. Firstly, the order dated 05.04.2014
itself mentions that the liability to pay 3 times rent shall accrue after six
months from the date of issue of certificate of re-possession. There is
no material to indicate as to when certificate of re-possession was issued.
Secondly, the order made by the Rent Tribunal as well as Rent Appellate
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
559
Tribunal stand superseded by the order of the High Court dated 01.11.2017
which was passed with the consent of both the parties. The High Court
in its order dated 01.11.2017 recorded terms and conditions for permitting
the appellant to continue in occupation of the premises in question till
30.04.2019. The terms and conditions  recorded in the order by the High
Court are clearly in variance with the decree of the Rent Tribunal and
the Rent Appellate Tribunal. What was required to be adhered to are the
directions of the High Court dated 01.11.2017 and not the order of the
Tribunal as claimed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
19. We are, thus, of the opinion that the relevant materials have
been brought on record to prove that the appellant deposited the arrears
of rent/mesne profits as per order of the High Court dated 01.11.2017
though belatedly. The appellant has also brought on record the receipt of
payment of amount of Rs.33,000/- towards rent for the period of
20.03.2017 to 28.02.2018 @ Rs.3,000/- towards March, 2018.
20. In the result, we set aside the orders of the High Court dated
15.01.2018 and 27.02.1018 and further direct that the appellant be put
back in possession of the premises within a period of one week. The
appellant shall continue to deposit the mesne profit as per order of the
High Court dated 01.11.2017 and in the event of any default committed
by the appellant, it shall be open for the respondent-landlady to take
appropriate
proceedings against the appellant. The appeals are allowed
accordingly.
Devika Gujral
                Appeals allowed.
NONIHAL SINGH v. MAYA DEVI
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]