http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: KAMLA DEVI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VASDEV

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/12/1994

BENCH: SEN, S.C. (J) BENCH: SEN, S.C. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BHARUCHA S.P. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR  985            1995 SCC  (1) 356  JT 1995 (1)   142        1994 SCALE  (5)295

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J.- Leave granted. 2.This  appeal is against an order passed by the Delhi  High Court  on  5-9-1989, declining to interfere  with  an  order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal dated 30-5-1989. 3.The  appellant, Smt Kamla Devi, is the owner of  Shop  No. 408,  Pandit Lila Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New  Delhi.   The shop was let out to the respondent, The respondent defaulted in  payment of rent.  The appellant sent a demand notice  on 18-5-1981  upon  the respondent for recovery of  arrears  of rent.  The respondent neither paid nor tendered the  arrears of rent within the period of two months after the service of the  demand  notice.  On or about  2-8-1982,  the  appellant filed  an eviction petition under clause (a)  of  subsection (1)  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.   It was admitted in the written statement that rent was due from 1-1-1980.   On  27-1-1984 the  Additional  Rent  Controller, Delhi, passed an order to the following effect:               "I direct the respondent to pay or deposit the               entire arrears of rent @ Rs 50 w.e.f. 1-1-1980               within one month of the passing of this  order               and continue to pay or deposit the  subsequent               rent   month  by  month  the  15th   of   each               succeeding   month.   Case  to  come  up   for               parties’ evidence on 18-3-1984."               358 4.   Thereafter  the respondent paid a sum of Rs 500 to  the appellant promising to pay the arrears before expiry of  the period  stipulated in the order.  The  respondent,  however, did  not  pay  the arrears as promised.   On  11-4-1984  the appellant  filed  an application under  sub-section  (7)  of Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for  striking out  the  defence  and to proceed with the  hearing  of  the application on the ground that the tenant had failed to make

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

payment or any deposit of the arrears of rent.               5.    The  Additional Rent  Controller  passed               the following order:               "Since  the  respondent failed to  comply  the               order dated 27-1-1984 under Section 15(1),  he               was  not  entitled to  benefit  under  Section               14(2) of the Act and as such he was liable  to               suffer straight eviction order.   Accordingly,               an  eviction order is passed in favour of  the               petitioner  and  against  the  respondent   in               respect  of shop bearing No. 408, situated  at               Lila  Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New  Delhi,  as               shown red in the site plan, Ex.  RW 1/2." 6.   On  appeal, the Tribunal remanded the case back to  the Rent Controller to consider whether the delay in deposit  of arrears  of  rent  amounting  to Rs 2150  is  liable  to  be condoned  or  not  before  deciding  whether  the  appellant deserves to get the benefit of Section 14(2) or has rendered himself liable to be evicted. 7.   On  remand, the Additional Rent Controller held,  inter alia,  that there was some compromise between  the  parties. In  any case, the delay in depositing Rs 2150 could  not  be termed as wilful, deliberate and contumacious non-compliance of  order  under  Section 15(1) passed  on  27-1-1984.   The landlord was entitled at the most to some compensation.   In the  premises, the Additional Rent Controller  condoned  the delay in depositing Rs 2150 by the tenant.  It was held that the  respondent  was  entitled to get  the  benefit  of  the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act. 8.   Kamla Devi, appealed to the Tribunal.  The only  ground urged  before the Tribunal was that there was no reason  for condonation of the delay and the Additional Rent  Controller should  have struck out the defence of the respondent.   The Tribunal  held after review of the facts that the  order  of striking  out the defence was uncalled for.  The tenant  was rightly  given the benefit of Section 14(2) of the  Act,  it being a case of first default. 9.   Kamla  Devi  made a further appeal to  the  High  Court which was dismissed. 10.  Kamla Devi has now come up to this Court.  It has  been contended  on her behalf that in view of the fact  that  the respondent neither took any step to deposit arrears of  rent nor  for extension of time within one month of the order  of the Rent Controller under Section 15(1) of the Act, the Rent Controller  did not have any discretionary power to  condone the delay under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It  was obligatory for the tenant to deposit the arrears  of rent within one month from the date of passing of the  order of   the  Rent  Controller.   It  was  contended  that   the provisions of 359 Section  14(1)(a),  Section 15(1) and Section 15(7)  of  the Delhi   Rent   Control  Act  have  been   misconstrued   and misunderstood. 11.  Before examining the contentions made on behalf of  the appellant,   it  is  necessary  to  set  out  the   relevant provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act:                " 14. Protection of tenant against eviction.-               (1)   Notwithstanding anything to the contrary               contained  in  any other law or  contract,  no               order or decree for the recovery of possession               of any premises shall be made by any court  or               Controller in favour of the landlord against a               tenant:               Provided  that  the  Controller  may,  on   an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

             application  made  to him  in  the  prescribed               manner,  make  an order for  the  recovery  of               possession  of the premises on one or more  of               the following grounds only, namely-               (a)   that  the  tenant has neither  paid  nor               tendered the whole of the arrears of the  rent               legally recoverable from him within two months               of  the date on which a notice of  demand  for               the arrears of rent has been served on him  by               the landlord in the manner provided in Section               106  of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882  (4               of 1882);                *                 *                   * (2)  No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on    the  ground specified in clause  (a)  of the proviso to sub-section (1), if the tenant makes  payment or deposit as required by Section 15: Provided  that  no tenant shall be entitled to  the  benefit under this subsection, if, having obtained such benefit once in respect of any premises, he again makes a default in  the payment  of  rent of those premises  for  three  consecutive months. *                      *                             * 15.  When a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction.-  (1)  In  every proceeding for  the  recovery  of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (a)  of  the proviso to subsection (1) of  Section  14,  the Controller shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being  heard, make an order directing the tenant to  pay  to the landlord or deposit with the Controller within one month of  the date of the order, an amount calculated at the  rate of  rent at which it was last paid for the period for  which the  arrears of the rent were legally recoverable  from  the tenant including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which payment or deposit is made  and to continue to pay or deposit, month by month,  by the fifteenth of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent  to the rent at that rate. (7)  If  a  tenant  fails  to make  payment  or  deposit  as required  by  this  section, the Controller  may  order  the defence  against eviction to be struck out and proceed  with the hearing of the application." 360 12.  The  scheme  of  the Act appears to be  that  a  tenant cannot  be evicted except on any one of the grounds set  out in  clauses (a) to (1) of Section 14(1).  If a tenant  is  a defaulter  in  payment  of  rent, even  then  an  order  for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises shall not be made straightaway.  The requirement of Section 15(1) is that the Controller will make the order directing tile defaulting tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Controller within  one month of the date of the order, tile  amount  of rent  in  arrear and continue to pay or  deposit,  month  by month,  by  the fifteenth of each succeeding  month,  a  sum equivalent  to the rent at that rate.  If the  tenant,  even after this order under Section 15(1), falls to carry out the direction  of the Controller, the Controller may  order  the defence  against eviction to be struck out and proceed  with the hearing of the application. 13.  It  has been contended on behalf of the appellant  that once there is a failure oil the part of the tenant to  carry Out  the  direction given by the  Controller  under  Section 15(1) of the Act, the tenant is not entitled to any  further opportunity  to  pay  in terms of  the  order  passed  under Section  15(1) and the landlord is entitled straightaway  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

an  order  for striking out the defence of  the  tenant  and consequently an order for eviction of the tenant. 14.  In  support of this contention Our attention was  drawn to  a number of cases which have dealt with this  aspect  of the  matter. In  the case of Hem Chand v.  Delhi  Cloth  & General  Mills Co. Ltd.1 the landlord filed  an  application for  eviction  of the tenant under Section 14 of  the  Delhi Rent  Control Act on the grounds of non-payment of rent  and also   unauthorised   sub-letting.   The   Additional   Rent Controller  on  receipt of the application of  the  landlord passed  an  order  under Section 15( 1) of  the  Delhi  Rent Control Act, directing the tenant to deposit the arrears  of rent  within  a  month  and  thereafter  deposit  an  amount equivalent  to  the  rent  month by  month.   There  was  an assurance  on  the  part of the tenant to  comply  with  the direction  fully.   The landlord made an  application  under Section 15(7) of the Act and prayed that the defence of  the appellant  against  eviction  be struck  out.   The  tenant, thereafter,  deposited the entire amount of rent due  up  to date.   On 15-10-1965 the Additional Rent Controller  struck out  the defence of the tenant stating that on the  date  of the  order there were arrears of rent.  The Additional  Rent Controller also passed an order of eviction on the ground of sub-letting.   He, however, declined to pass any  order  for eviction  on the ground of nonpayment of rent,  because  the tenant had already deposited the arrears of rent on the date when  the  defence  was struck out.   On  appeal,  the  Rent Control  Tribunal decided that the defence should  not  have been struck in the facts of that case and remanded the  case for  reconsideration  on  the  point  of  Subletting.  The landlord  appealed  to  Delhi  High  Court.   The  case  was referred  to a Full Bench.  The Full Bench held that when  a tenant defaulted in making deposit or payment under  Section 15  of  the Act, the Rent Controller was bound  to  pass  an order  for recovery of the possession and could  not  refuse the  landlord’s prayer for eviction.  It was  further  field that the Rent Controller 1 (1977) 3 SCC 483 361 had no right to condone the delay, if any, in making payment according to the requirements of Section 15(1) of the Act. 15.  On further appeal, it was held by a Bench of two Judges of this Court: (SCC pp. 488-489, para 8)               "While  we  agree with the view  of  the  Full               Bench  that  the Controller has  no  power  to               condone  the  failure  of the  tenant  to  pay               arrears  of  rent as  required  under  Section               15(1),  we are satisfied that the  Full  Bench               fell  into an error in holding that the  right               to obtain an order for recovery of  possession               accrued  to the landlord.  As we have set  out               earlier in the event of the tenant failing  to                             comply with the order under Section 15(1)  the               application  will have to be heard  giving  an               opportunity  to the tenant if his  defence  is               not struck out under Section 15(7) and without               hearing  the tenant if his defence  is  struck               out.  The Full Bench is therefore ill error in               allowing  the application of the  landlord  on               the  basis  of the failure of  the  tenant  to               comply with an order under Section 15( 1)." 16.  On  behalf of the appellant it has been contended  that this is a clear authority for the proposition that under the provisions   of  the  Delhi  Rent  Control  Act,  the   Rent Controller has no power to condone the failure of the tenant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

to  pay arrears of rent as required under Section  15(1)  of the Delhi Rent Control Act.  The judgment in the case of Ram Murti  v.  Bhola  Nath 2 which took  a  contrary  view,  was wrongly  decided  by another Bench of two Judges.   In  that case,  reliance  was wrongly placed on the judgment  in  the case  of  Shyamcharan  Sharma v.  Dharamdas3  in  which  the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control  Act, 1961 fell for consideration. 17.  We are unable to uphold this contention.  In our  view, it  is not obligatory for the Rent Controller to strike  out the  defence of the tenant under Section 15(7) of the  Delhi Act,  if  the  tenant fails to make payment  or  deposit  as directed  by  an  order passed  under  Section  15(1).   The language  of  sub-section  (7) of Section 15  is  that  "the Controller  may  order the defence against  eviction  to  be struck  out".   That clearly means, the  Controller,  ’in  a given case, may not pass such an order.  It must depend upon the  facts of the case and the discretion of the  Controller whether such a drastic order should or should not be passed. 18.  The position in law, in the event of a tenant’s failure to  comply  with an order under Section 15(1) of  the  Delhi Rent  Control Act or similar provisions of other Rent  Acts, has been examined in several other decisions of this  Court. It is true that the case of Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas3 was   decided  under  the  provisions  of   Madhya   Pradesh Accommodation  Control Act, 1961 but the provisions of  that Act  relating  to eviction of tenants were  similar  to  the corresponding  provisions  of Delhi Rent Control  Act.   The relevant provisions of Madhya Pradesh Act are:               "12.  Restriction on eviction of tenants.- (1)               Notwithstanding   anything  to  the   contrary               contained  in  any other law or  contract,  no               suit               2 (1984) 3 SCC 111               3 (1980) 2 SCC 151               362               shall  be filed in any Civil Court  against  a               tenant for his eviction from any accommodation               except on one or more of the following grounds               only, namely:               (a)   that  the  tenant has neither  paid  nor               tendered the whole of the arrears of the  rent               legally recoverable from him within two months               of  the date on which a notice of  demand  for               the arrears of rent has been served on him  by               the landlord in the prescribed manner               *                  *                    *               (3)   No  order for the eviction of  a  tenant               shall  be  made  on the  ground  specified  in               clause  (a) of sub-section (1), if the  tenant               makes  payment  or  deposit  as  required   by               Section 13:               13.   When   tenant   can   get   benefit   of               protection against eviction.- (1) On a suit or               proceeding being instituted by the landlord on               any of the grounds referred to in Section  12,               the  tenant  shall, within one  month  of  the               service  of writ of summons on him  or  within               such  further  time as the Court  may,  on  an               application made to it, allow in this  behalf,               deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord an               amount calculated at the rate of rent at which               it  was  paid, for the period  for  which  the               tenant  may  have made default  including  the               period subsequent thereto up to the end of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

             month previous to that in which the deposit or               payment is made and shall thereafter  continue               to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th               of  each succeeding month a sum equivalent  to               the rent at that rate.               *         *                     *               (5)   If a tenant makes deposit or payment  as               required  by sub-section (1),  or  sub-section               (2)  no decree or order shall be made  by  the               Court  for the recovery of possession  of  the               accommodation on the ground of default in  the               payment  of rent by the tenant, but the  Court               may allow such cost as it may deem fit to  the               landlord.               (6)   If a tenant fails to deposit or pay  any               amount as required by this section, the               Court  may order the defence against  eviction               to  be struck out and shall proceed  with  the               hearing of the suit."               19.   In  Shyamcharan Sharma case3 a Bench  of               three Judges of this Court held:    (SCC    p.               154, para 4)               "We  think  that  Section  13  quite   clearly               confers a discretion, on the court, to  strike               out  or  not  to strike out  the  defence,  if               default is made in deposit or payment of  rent               as  required by Section 13(1).  If  the  court               has  the  discretion  not to  strike  out  the               defence  of  a tenant  committing  default  in               payment  or  deposit as  required  by  Section               13(1),  the  court  surely  has  the   further               discretion  to condone the default and  extend               the  time  for  payment or  deposit.   Such  a               discretion  is a necessary implication of  the               discretion not to strike out the defence."               363 20.  On  behalf of the appellant it has been contended  that the principles laid down in this case should not be extended to  a case governed by the provisions of Delhi Rent  Control Act.   We do not find any material distinction  between  the provisions of Section 12(1), (3) and Section 13(1), (5)  and (6)  of  the  Madhya  Pradesh  Act  and  the   corresponding provisions  of Section 14(1), (2) and Section 15(1), (7)  of the  Delhi Act.  In fact this argument was rejected  in  the case of Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath2.  In that case,  construing the  provisions of the Delhi Act, it was held  that  Section 15(7) conferred a discretionary power on the Rent Controller to  strike  out the defence of the tenant.  That  being  the position,  the  Rent Controller had, by  legal  implication, power  to condone the default on the part of the  tenant  in making  payment or deposit of future rent or to extend  time for such period or deposit.  It was held: (SCC pp.  118-119, para 11)               "With  respect, the observations in Hem  Chand               case1  expressing  the  view  that  the   Rent               Controller  has  no power to extend  the  time               prescribed   in   Section  15(1)   cannot   be               construed to mean that he is under a statutory               obligation  to pass an order for  eviction  of               the  tenant  under  Section  14(1)(a)  without               anything  more due to the failure on his  part               to  comply  with the requirements  of  Section               15(1).  The question would still remain as  to               the   course  to  be  adopted  by   the   Rent               Controller in such a situation in the  context

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

             of  Section  15(7) which confers on  the  Rent               Controller a discretion not to strike out  the               defence  of  the tenant ’In the event  of  the               contingency occurring, namely, failure on  the               part   of   the  tenant  to  meet   with   the               requirements of Section 15(1)." 21.  In coming to this conclusion reliance was placed on the decision  in the case of Shyamcharan Sharma case3.   It  was argued  on behalf of the respondent that Shyamcharan  Sharma case3  was  decided under the Madhya  Pradesh  Accommodation Control  Act, 1961 which had a different  scheme  altogether and  had  no application to a case to be decided  under  the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act.  This argument was repelled by pointing out in that judgment that the scheme of the  Madhya  Pradesh  Accommodation Control  Act,  1961  was almost  similar to that of the Delhi Act with regard to  the claim of the landlord for eviction of the tenant on  failure to pay rent.  The only difference was that under the  Madhya Pradesh  Act the landlord had to bring a suit  for  eviction before  a Civil Court under Section 12(1)(a), whereas  under the Delhi Act an application had to be made before the  Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(a). 22.  The  unreasonableness of the construction suggested  by the  appellant  is well illustrated by the case  of  Santosh Mehta  v.  Om  Prakash4.  In that case,  the  tenant  was  a working woman, who had engaged an advocate to represent  her in  a  dispute  with the landlord.  She duly  paid  all  the arrears  of rent by cheque or in cash to her  advocate,  who failed  to deposit the amount or to pay to the landlord,  as directed by the Rent Controller.  On an application made  by the landlord, the Rent Controller struck out the defence  of the tenant 4 (1980) 3 SCC 610 :(1980) 3 SCR 325 364 under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.  A  Bench of two Judges of this Court held that the exercise of  power of  striking  out the defence under Section  15(7)  was  not imperative whenever the tenant failed to deposit or pay  any amount as required by Section 15.  The provisions  contained in  Section  15(7)  of  the  Act  were  directory  and   not mandatory.  Section 15(7) was a penal provision and gave the Rent  Controller  discretionary  power  in  the  matter   of striking  out of the defence.  It was ultimately  held  that the order of the Rent Controller striking out the defence of the  tenant  in the facts of that case  was  improper.   The consequential order of eviction was set aside. 23.  We are unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that  the  case  of Ram Murti v.  Bhola  Nath2  was  wrongly decided and reliance was wrongly placed in that case on  the decision  of  a Bench of three Judges of this Court  in  the case of Shyamcharan Sharma v. DharamdaS3.  In our view, sub- section (7)    of Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control  Act, 1958 gives a discretion to the     Rent Controller and  does not contain a mandatory provision for striking out     the defence of the tenant against eviction.  The Rent Controller may or may     not  pass an order striking out the  defence. The  exercise of this discretion will depend upon the  facts and  circumstances of each case.  If the Rent Controller  is of the view that in the facts of a particular case the  time to make payment or deposit pursuant to an order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 15 should be extended, he may  do so  by  passing a suitable order.  Similarly, if he  is  not satisfied  about  the case made out by the  tenant,  he  may order  the defence against eviction to be struck out.   But, the  power  to strike out the defence  against  eviction  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

discretionary and must not be mechanically exercised without any application of mind to the facts of the case. 24.  In  that view of the matter, this appeal fails  and  is dismissed.  Each party will bear its own costs. 365