http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SMT. PRAKASH MEHRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K.L. MALHOTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/04/1989

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) NATRAJAN, S. (J)

CITATION:  1989 AIR 1652            1989 SCR  (2) 744  1989 SCC  (3)  74        JT 1989 (2)   262  1989 SCALE  (1)1136

ACT:     Delhi      Rent      Control     Act,      1958:      s. 14(1)(a)--Eviction--Notice   of   demand  for   arrears   of rent--Satisfaction  of--Held, arrears of rent due cannot  be extended to rent falling due after service of notice.

HEADNOTE:     The respondent-tenant fell into arrears of rent for  two months  consecutively. The rent was payable in  advance.  He was  served  with a notice of demand, within seven  days  of which he sent a bank draft purporting to be the rent for the first  month, and within a month another bank draft for  the like  amount.  The landlady neither  encashed  nor  returned them.  After the notice period she filed an application  for his ejectment.     The  Rent  Controller held that the tenant  was  not  in default.  The Tribunal, however, found that when the  notice of demand was served the arrears of rent for the two  months had  arisen, that the bank draft sent thereafter related  to the rent for the first month only, that as the rent for  the second month had also become due but had not been  tendered, the landlady was justified in not accepting the tender,  and that  when the respondent again sent a draft for the  second month  the rent for the third month had also fallen due  but was not tendered. It thus took the view that the  respondent had  not tendered the arrears of rent due up-to-date  within two months of the notice of demand, and held that the ground of non-payment of rent stood established.     Allowing  the appeal, the High Court took the view  that s.  14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 made out  a ground  for eviction only where the tenant had neither  paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recov- erable  from  him within two months of the date on  which  a notice  of  demand was served on him by  the  landlord,  the arrears being the rent due on the date of the notice. As  in the  instant  case,  the notice called for  payment  of  the arrears  due  for the two months and the  bank  drafts  were tendered  within  the period indicated in  the  notice,  the notice was satisfied. Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court, 745

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

   HELD:  The arrears of rent envisaged by s.  14(1)(a)  of the  Delhi Rent Control Act are the arrears demanded by  the notice  for payment. The arrears of rent due cannot  be  ex- tended  to  rent which has fallen due after service  of  the notice. [747DE]     In  the instant case, the two bank  drafts  representing the arrears of rent covered by the notice of demand had been tendered  within  two months of the date of service  of  the notice.  The  High Court was, therefore, right in  the  view taken by it. [747DE]     Jag Ram Nathu Ram v. Shri Surinder Kumar, S.A.O. No.  52 of 1975 and S.L. Kapur v. Dr. Mrs. P.D. Lal, All India  Rent Control Journal, [1975] 322, overruled.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3119  of 1984.     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.9.1982 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No. 181 of 1979. Dr. Y.S. Chitale and Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant.      R.K. Garg, Gopal Singh, L.R. Singh and Mrs. Vimal Sinha for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:      PATHAK,  CJ.  This is a landlady’s  appeal  by  special leave  arising out of proceedings for the ejectment  of  the respondent-tenant.      The  appellant  let  out the premises in  suit  to  the respondent  on 1 September, 1962, the rent being  stipulated as payable in advance. With effect from 1 January, 1972  the rent  payable was Rs. 515 per month. On 29  November,  1972, the  contractual tenancy was determined by notice.  The  re- spondent  received a notice on 7 May, 1976 calling upon  him to  pay the arrears of-rent. The rent in fact had  been  re- ceived  upto 31 March, 1976 and, therefore, when the  notice of  demand was served on the appellant, rent for the  months of  April and May 1976 had fallen due. The rent was  payable in advance.      On 13 May, 1976, the respondent offered a bank draft of Rs.515 to the appellant. The appellant refused to accept it. Two  days later, the respondent sent the same bank draft  by registered post. The appellant 746 received  the bank draft and retained it. On 7  June,  1976, the appellant wrote to the respondent informing him that his tender  was not valid. On 11 June, 1976, the appellant  sent another  bank  draft for Rs.515 to the  landlady,  and  this draft again was neither encashed nor returned.     On  2 August, 1976, the appellant filed  an  application for ejectment out of which the present appeal arises.  After filing the application for ejectment, the appellant informed the  respondent that both the bank drafts sent by  him  were lying uncashed.     The Additional Controller, Delhi, dismissed the eviction petition  holding  that the tenant was not in  default.  The Rent  Control Tribunal, Delhi, noted that the rent was  pay- able in advance in accordance with the agreement between the parties, that the respondent had earlier enjoyed the benefit of section 14(2) of the Act, that when the notice of  demand was served on 7 May, 1976 the arrears of rent for the months of  April and May 1976 had arisen, that the bank draft  sent on  13  May, 1976 related to the rent of April  1,976  only, that  as the rent for the month of May 1976 had also  become due but had not been tendered, the landlady was justified in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

not accepting the tender, and that when the respondent again sent  a  draft on 11 June, 1976 to cover the  rent  for  the month  of May 1976 the rent for the month of June  1976  had also  fallen  due  but was not tendered.  Holding  that  the respondent  had not tendered the arrears of rent due  up-to- date within two months of the notice of demand, the Tribunal held  that  the ground of non-payment of rent  stood  estab- lished.  The Tribunal noted that the rent had not been  paid for  the months of April, May and June 1976 in  advance  for each  month  and, therefore, the  respondent  had  committed three  consecutive  defaults. That being  so,  the  Tribunal observed, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit  of s. 14(2) again.     In  second appeal, the High Court reversed the  decision of  the Rent Control Tribunal and dismissed the  application for ejectment upon the finding that the notice demanding the arrears of rent related to the months of April and May 1976, and  as one draft had been sent on 13 May, 1976 and  another on  11 June, 1976 representing a total of two months’  rent, and  as  this rent had been paid within two  months  of  the service of notice of demand, it must be taken that the  rent due at the time of the service of notice of demand had  been tendered by the respondent to the appellant. The High  Court proceeded on the view that s. 14(1)(a) of the Act made out a ground  for eviction only where the tenant had neither  paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recov- erable from him within two months of the date on 747 which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent was  served on  him by the landlord, the arrears being the rent  due  on the  date of the notice. In this case, the High Court  said, as the notice called for payment of the arrears due for  the months  of April and May 1976 and the bank drafts were  ten- dered within the period indicated in the notice, the  notice was  satisfied  and no default could be said  to  have  been committed  in terms of s. 14(1)(a) of the Act.  Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the applica- tion for ejectment.     It is urged before us by learned counsel for the  appel- lant that s. 14(1)(a) of the Act contemplates the payment or tender of the whole of the arrears of rent legally recovera- ble  from the tenant on the date when the demand  notice  is sent  including the rent which has accrued after service  of the demand notice. When the notice was sent on 7 May,  1976, rent  for the months of April and May 1976 had  become  due, and  as two months was given for payment of the arrears,  it would  include  also the rent which had accrued  during  the said  period of two months. We are not satisfied that  there is  substance in the contention. The arrears of rent  envis- aged  by s. 14(1)(a) of the Act are the arrears demanded  by the  notice for payment of arrears of rent. The arrears  due cannot be extended to rent which has fallen due after  serv- ice  of  the notice of demand. In this case,  the  two  bank drafts  representing  the  arrears of rent  covered  by  the notice of demand had been tendered within two months of  the date  of service of the notice of demand. The High Court  is fight in the view taken by it. We are not satisfied that the construction  placed by B.C. Misra, J. in Jag Ram Nathu  Ram v. Shri Surinder Kumar, S.A.O. No. 52 of 1975 decided on  28 April,  1976  and in S.L. Kapur v. Dr. Mrs.  P.D.  Lal,  All India Rent Control Journal 1975 p. 322 lays down the control law on the point.     In  the  result, the appeal fails and is  dismissed  but there is no order as to costs. P.S.S.                                  Appeal dismissed.

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

748