RAM MURTI V. BHOLANATH, AIR 1984 SC 1392
FACTS
Respondent 1, Bhola Nath who is the landlord made an application dated December 18, 1968 claiming eviction of the appellant and respondent 2 Basant Lal on the ground mentioned in Section 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. It was alleged that although the appellant had taken the premises on rent from the Custodian of Evacuee Properties at Rs 18 per month he vacated the premises after respondent 1 acquired the same and there was a new tenancy created in his favour on March 1, 1961 on a monthly rent of Rs. 80.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Additional Rent Controller: u/s 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, directed the appellant to deposit the rent Rs. 18/month w.e.f. December 1, 1965 and to deposit the future rent at the same day on the fifteenth day of each succeeding month.
Second Additional Rent Controller: directed the future rent at the same rate on the 15th day of each succeeding month.
High Court: it relied upon the decision of this court in Hem Chand v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co Ltd. held that Rent Controller had no power to extend the time prescribed by an order u/s 15(1) which requires the tenant to deposit the arrears of the rent within one month from the date of the order and future rents by the fifteenth day of each succeeding month.
ISSUE
Whether the Rent Controller has the power to extend the time for such payment and deposit?
APPELLANT’S CONTENTION
This Court in Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas held that inasmuch as the Rent Controller has a discretion under Section 15(7) of the Act not to strike out the defence of a tenant for committing default in making payment or deposit of the rent as required by Section 15(1) he has by necessary implication the power to condone the default in making payment or deposit of future rent falling due after the institution of the proceedings as required under Section 15(1) and also to extend the time for such payment or deposit.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION
JUDGEMENT
The court held that,
In Hem Chand case the Court went to the extent of laying down that even if the defence of the tenant is struck out under Section 15(7), the Rent Controller could not straightaway make an order for eviction in favour of the landlord under Section 14(1)(a). The Court held that the High Court was wrong in its assumption.
If the Rent Controller has the discretion under S. 15(7) not to strike out the defence of the tenant he necessarily has the power to extend the time for payment of future rent under Sec. 15(1) where the failure of the tenant to make such payment or deposit was due to circumstance beyond his control. The previous decision in Hem Chand case interpreting S. 15(7) and Sec. 14(2) in the context of s. 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, although not expressly overruled, cannot stand with the subsequent decision in Shyamcharan case interpreting the analogous provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 as it is a larger Bench.
The further contention advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that in a case of consecutive defaults the proviso to Section 14 (2) is attracted, cannot be accepted for obvious reasons. On a plain construction, it provides that no tenant shall be entitled to the benefit under Section 14(2) if, having obtained such benefit once in respect of any premises, he again makes a default in the payment of rent for that premises for three consecutive months. On a plain construction, the proviso is attracted only in a case where the tenant has been saved from eviction in an earlier proceeding for eviction before the Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. ,i.e., the tenant must have enjoyed the benefit of Section 14 (2) in a previously instituted proceeding.
We are constrained to set aside its judgement and order as well as the order of the Rent Control Tribunal and that of the Rent Controller which proceed to order the eviction of the appellant under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 upon that basis and the matter must be remitted back to the Rent Controller for a decision afresh.
The result therefore is that the appeal succeeds and is allowed.