Case ID: 1567

Judgment:
Appeal No. 541 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 31	 1962	 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in section A. O. No. 86 D of 1962. A.S. B. Chari	 M. K. Ramamurthi	 D. P. Singh and B. K. Garg	 for the appellant. G. section Pathak	 F. C. Bedi and D. D. Sharma	 for respondents. December 17. The judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA	 C. J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of a learned single judge of the Punjab High Court summarily dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant	 by his order dated May 31	 1962	 from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated March 7	 1962	 con firming that of the Additional Rent Controller	 Delhi	 dated July 27	 1961	 whereby he had directed the appellant to be evicted from the premises in question. It appears that the respondents are admittedly the landlords of the premises	 No. 24	 Ansari Road	 Darya Ganj	 Delhi. The appellant claims to have been in occupation of the premises since prior to 1950	 at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/ . In 1955	 the respondent had instituted a suit for the eviction of the All India Postal & R.M.S. Union	 and the appellant was also impleaded as a party to the suit. The respondents	 in 1958	 made an application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that they had come to know that the last owner	 the father of the first respondent	 had let the building to the appellant for his residential purposes and that the case should proceed againt him only. But the 262 Subordinate judge	 before whom the suit was pending	 did not permit the amendment of the plaint but granted permission to withdraw from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh one	 by his order dated May 8	 1959. Thereafter	 on February 25	 1960	 the respondents made an application before the Rent Controller	 Delhi	 for the eviction of the appellant alone	 without impleading the Union aforesaid as a party: The contention of the appellant was that the premises had been let out by the father of the first plaintiff respondent to the All India Postal & R.M.S. Union for office cum residential purposes and the tenancy of the Union had never been terminated. The appellant also alleged that he was not a tenant and	 therefore	 the application for his eviction was not maintainable. The petition for eviction was founded on the allegation that the appellant as tenant had made persistent default in the payment of rent and	 secondly	 that the premises were bonafide required by the respondents for their own residence	 as the first respondent was about to leave the employment of a certain hospital which had provided him with residential accommodation. That is to say	the petition for eviction was brought under s.14(1)(a) & (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (LIX of 1958)which will be referred to in the course of the judgment as the Act. The appellant besides denying his tenancy and asserting the tenancy of the Union aforesaid stated that the respondents had already got suitable accommodation and that their requirement of the premises in question was not bonafide; the notice of demand for payment of rent served on the appellant was neither valid nor proper in law inasmuch as he was not the tenant in respect of the premises	 and that the notice of demand should have been served on the Union. The appellant asserted that he was only a licensee of the Union	 and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondents. On April 2	 1960	 the Additional Rent Controller passed an order 263 directing the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent from August 1	1958	 up to date	 at the rate of Rs. 50/ per month	 and future monthly rent	 month by month	 by the 15th of every following month. The respondents made an application on May 16	 1961	 under section 15(7) of the Act for striking out his defence against eviction on the ground that the tenant had failed to make the payment or deposit	 as directed by the order dated April 2	 1960	 aforesaid. The appellant denied that he had made any default in the regular payment of rent	 but also asserted that if there was any such default it was not intentional and was the result of a miscalculation. By his order dated July 26	 1961	 the Additional Rent Controller ordered the defence of the appellant to be struck out. An appeal against the order striking out his defence was made to the Rent Control Tribunal on September 15	 1961	 which was late by one day. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time barred	 as also on merits	 by its order dated March 6	 1962. By his order dated July 17 	 1961	 the Additional Rent Controller passed an ex parte order of	ejectment against the appellant holding that prima facie the relationship of landlord and tenant had been established	 on the basis of certain rent receipts granted by the respondents to the appellant. He also held that the respondents ' personal bonafide need for accommodation had been established. Appeal against that order was dismissed on March 7	 1962	 by the Rent Control Tribunal. On May 28	 1962	 the appellant filed a second appeal in the High Court of Punjab at Delhi against the order dated March .7	 1962	 of the Rent Control Tribunal	 dismissing his appeal against the order of eviction. No second appeal was taken to the High Court in respect of the dismissal of the appeal relating to the order dated March 6	 1962	 of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing his appeal in respect of the order of the Additional Rent Controller striking out his defence. The second appeal was dismissed summarily by a 264 Single judge on May 31	 1962. The appellant moved this Court during the long vacation and obtained an order from the learned Vacation judge granting special leave to appeal	 on June 5	 1962. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the landlord respondent that no second appeal having been filed againts the order aforesaid of the Rent Control Tribunal	 dismissing his appeal in respect of the order of the Additional Rent Controller striking out his defence	 that order had become final between the parties	 and	 therefore	 this appeal was incompetent. As will presently appear	 this question is bound up with merits of the appeal and has	 therefore	 to be determined not as a preliminary objection but as one of the contentions between the parties	 on the merits of the appeal itself. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the authorities under the Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings	 inasmuch as it was denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Consequently	 it was further contended	 the provisions of section 15 (7) of the Act could not be applied against the appellant in the absence of a finding that he was the tenant in respect of the premises in question. It was also contended that the delay of one day made in preferring the appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal should have been condoned	 and the order refusing condonation was vitiated by applying erroneous considerations. Other contentions raised related to concurrent findings of fact of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal and we need not	 therefore	 take notice of these arguments. The most important question that arises for determination in this case is whether or not the Rent Control authorities had jurisdiction in the matter in controversy in this case. Ordinarily it is for the Civil Courts to determine whether and	 if so	 what jural relationship exists between the litigating 265 parties. But the Act has been enacted to provide for the control of rents and evictions of tenants	 avowedly for their benefit and protection. The Act postulates the relationship of landlord and tenant which must be a preexisting relationship. The Act is directed to control some of the terms and incidents of that relationship. Hence	 there is no express provision in the Act empowering the controller	 or the Tribunal	 to determine whether or not there is a relationship of landlord and tenant. Inmost cases such a question would not arise for determination by the authorities under the Act. A landlord must be very ill advised to start proceedings under the Act	 if there is no such relationship of landlord and tenant. If a person in possession of the premises is not a tenant	 the owner of the premises would be entitled to institute a suit for ejectment in the Civil Courts	 untrammelled by the provisions of the Act. It is only when he happens to be the tenant of premises in an urban area that the provisions of the Act	are attracted. If a person moves a Controller for eviction of a person on the ground that he is a tenant who had	 by his acts or omissions	 made himself liable to be evicted on any one of the grounds for eviction	 and if the tenant denies that the plaintiff is the landlord	 the Controller has to decide the question whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant. If the Controller decides that there is no such relationship the proceeding has to be terminated	 without deciding the main question in controversy	 namely the question of eviction. If on the other hand	 the Controller comes to the opposite conclusion and holds that the person seeking eviction was the landlord and the person in possession was the tenant the proceedings have to go on. Under section 15 (4) of the Act	 the Controller is authorised to decide the question whether the claimant was entitled to an order for payment of rent	 and if there is a dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable	 he may direct the tenant to deposit with him the 266 amount payable until the decision of the question as to who is entitled to that payment. "Landlord" has been defined under the Act as a person who is receiver or is entitled to receive the rent of the premises (omitting the words not necessary for our present purposes). If the Controller comes to the conclusion that any dispute raised by the tenant as to who was entitled to receive rent had been raised by the tenant for false or frivolous reasons	 he may order the defence against eviction to be struck out (section 15 (5)). Similarly	 if a tenant fails to make payment or deposit as required by section 15 (2)	 the Controller may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and proceed with the hearing of the application for eviction (section 15 (7)). Such an order was	 as already indicated	 passed by the Rent Controller in this case. Now	 proceedings under section 15 are primarily meant for the benefit of the tenant	 and the section authorises the Controller after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard	 to make an order directing the tenant to pay the amount found on calculation to be due to the landlord or to deposit it with the Controller	 within one month of the date of the order. Such an order can be passed by the Controller for the benefit of the tenant	 only if the Controller decides that the person against whom the proceedings for eviction had been initiated was in the position of a tenant. Thus	 any order passed by the Controller	 either under section 15 or other sections of the Act	 assumes that the Controller has the jurisdiction to make the order	 i. e.	 to determine the issue of relation ship. In this case	 when the Controller made the order for deposit of the arrears of rent due	 under section 15 (1)	 and on default of that made the order under sub section (7) of section 15	 striking out the defence	 the Controller must be deemed to have decided that the appellant was a tenant. Such a decision may not be res judicata in a regular suit in which a similar issue may directly arise for decision. Hence	 267 any orders made by a Controller under the Act proceed on the assumption that he has the necessary power to do so under the provisions of the Act	 which apply and which are meant to Control rents and evictions of tenants. An order under section 15 (1) is meant primarily for the protection and benefit of the tenant. If the appellant took his stand upon the plea that he was not a tenant he should have simply denied the relationship and walked out of the proceedings. Instead of that	 he took active steps to get the protection against eviction afforded by Act	 by having an order passed by the Controller	 giving him a locus poenitentiae by allowing further time to make the deposit of rent outstanding against him. The Controller	 therefore	 must be taken to have decided that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties	 and secondly	 that the tenant was entitled to the protection under the Act. It is true that the Act does not in terms authorise the authorities under the Act to determine finally the question of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Act proceeds on the assumption that there is such a relationship. If the relationship is denied	 the authorities under the Act have to determine that question also	 because a simple denial of the relationship cannot oust the jurisdiction of the tribunals under the Act. True	 they are tribunals of the limited jurisdiction	 the scope of their power and authority being limited by the provisions of the Statute. But a simple denial of the relationship either by the alleged landlord or by the alleged tenant would not have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act	 because the simplest thing in the world would be for the party interested to block the proceedings under the Act to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant. The tribunals under the Act being creatures of the Statute have limited jurisdiction and have to function within the four corners of the Statute creating them. But within the provisions 268 of the Act	 they are tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction and their orders are final and not liable to be questioned in collateral proceedings like a separate suit or application in execution proceedings. In our opinion	 therefore	 there is no substance in the contention that as soon as the appellant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant; the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act was completely ousted. Nor is there any jurisdiction in the contention that the provisions of sub section (7) of section 15 of the Act had been erroneously applied to the appellant. The orders under those provisions were for his benefit and he must be deemed to have invited the Controller to pass those orders in his favour. Otherwise	 he should have walked out of the proceedings after intimating to the Controller that he was not interested to contest the proceedings in as much as he was not a tenant	 and that a third party was the tenant. This order	 of course	 will bind only the appellant and no one else	 and as he failed to take advantage of the order passed in his favour under section 15 (7)	 he cannot make a grievance of it. Whether or not a delay of one day should have been condoned was a matter of discretion with the appellate authority	 and it is not for this Court to say that this discretion should have been exercised in one way and not in another. The crucial question is not whether the delay is of one day or more	 but whether or not there was any justification for the delay. It is for the appellate authority to determine whether or not the appellant had satisfied it as to the sufficiency of the ground for condoning the delay. This question of condonation of delay is more or less of academic interest only	 because the Tribunal not only considered the question of delay but also the appeal on its merits	 and on merits also it came to the conclusion that there was no ground for interference with the orders passed by the Rent Controller. Hence	 the question of condonation of delay is of no importance in this case. What is of greater importance is the 269 merit of the decision awarding possession to the landlord. In this connection	 it may be added that it was a little inconsistent on the part of the appellant to have taken all the advantages the Act affords to a tenant and then to turn round and to assert that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction in the matter	 because he was not. the tenant. The Rent Controller had to determine the controversy as between the parties for the purposes of disposing of the case under the Act. If the appellant really was a tenant	 he has had the benefit of the provision of the Act	 including the six months ' time as a period of grace after an order of the Rent Controller granting the landlord 's prayer for eviction. If he was not the tenant	 he has nothing to lose by the order of the Rent Controller. These proceedings cannot affect the interest of one who is not a party to the present case. Furthermore	 a second appeal lay from the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appellant 's appeal against the order striking out his defence. No such second appeal was taken to the High Court	 though as already stated a second appeal was preferred against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing his appeal against the order of eviction. The position is that the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal	 dated March 6	 1962	 dismissing the appeal against the order striking out his defence became final between the parties and is no more open to challenge. Hence	 it is no more open to the appellant to challenge the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act. In our opinion	 therefore	 there is no merit in his appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.

Summary:
The appellant was sought to be evicted by the landlord on the ground that he had habitually defaulted in the payment of rent as well as on the ground of the bonafide requirement of the land lord for his own occupation. He resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that the premises had been let to the 260 All India Postal R. M. section Union for office cum residential purposes and that the tenancy of the Union had not been terminated and that the rent had not been demanded from the Union. The appellant was directed to deposit the arrears of rent up to date as also to go on depositing the future rent accruing due month by month. The respondent applied under section 15(7) of the Act for striking out the defence of the appellant on the ground that he had failed to comply with the orders directing him to deposit the rent. Rejecting the explanation of the appellant the Additional Rent Controller ordered the defence of the appellant to be struck out on July 26	 1961	 and proceeded to pass an ex parte decree for eviction. The appellant went in appeal against the order striking out the defence which was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal both on the ground that it was barred by time as also on merits on March 6	 1961. The appellant did not take the matter in further appeal to the High Court. Against the decree for eviction the appellant went to the Rent Control Tribunal which dismissed the appeal. The appellant went in further appeal to the High Court which also dismissed the appeal summarily. On special leave	 it was contended that the appellant having denied the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant	 the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction in the matter. Held	 that under the Rent Control Law	 the special tribunal has to proceed on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant existing between the parties but a mere denial by the tenant of the tenancy would not suffice to oust the jurisdiction of the special tribunal. It is only when the tribunal comes to the conclusion that such a relationship did not exist that it will have no jurisdiction. Held	 further	 that the provisions of section 15 read with the definition of "landlord" enable the Rent Controller to determine the question of the relationship of landlord and tenant for the benefit of the tenant and when a party has invited the Rent Controller to apply the provisions of section 15 for his benefit and the Rent Controller does so	 he is deemed to have decided such a person is a tenant. The proper course for a person pleading that he was not a tenant would be to raise the plea and walk out of the proceedings and not to submit to jurisdiction. Held	 further	 that the appellant not having taken the matter of striking out his defence under section 15 (7) in appeal to the High Court the question of his being a tenant or otherwise had become final and could not be reagitated.