http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SUBHASH MEHTA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. S.P. CHOUDHARY (DEAD) BY LRS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/02/1990

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. MISRA RANGNATH AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR 1009            1990 SCR  (1) 506  1990 SCC  (2)  38        JT 1990 (1)   315  1990 SCALE  (1)240

ACT:     Delhi   Rent   Control  Act,  1958:   S.   15(1)--Rigour of--Eviction sustained on facts of the case.

HEADNOTE:     In  the  proceedings for eviction under the  Delhi  Rent Control  Act, 1958 for arrears of rent, subletting,  conver- sion  of user from residential to commercial and  bona  fide need, the appellant-tenant committed breach of the  Control- ler’s directions under s. 15(1) of the Act in the matter  of payment  of  monthly  rent. Consequently,  his  defence  was struck  off and the suit decreed on the sole ground  of  de- layed  payment  of future rent. All the other  grounds  were rejected.     The  tenant assailed the order before the  Rent  Control Tribunal relying on Hem Chand v. Delhi Cloth Mills, [1977] 2 SCR  440 on the rigour of s. 15(1) of the Act. The  Tribunal found  that  there was no infirmity in the order.  The  High Court maintained the ejectment.     In the appeal by special leave, it was contended for the appellant  on the strength of the decision in Ram  Murti  v. Bhola  Nath, [1984] 3 SCC 111 that s. 15(7) of the Act  con- fers  a discretion on the Rent Controller not to strike  off the defence of the tenant and consequently the delay by  him in  making deposit of future rent should have been  excused, and  that since no cross appeals were filed by the  landlord against  the rejection of other grounds in the court of  the Rent Control Tribunal or in the High Court nor those grounds were  pressed  in these two forums by  the  landlord,  those grounds  were  no more available to him. The  landlord  died during the pendency of the appeal and his widow and divorced daughter-respondent  succeeded to him as landlords.  It  was contended  for  them  that the tenant was a  rich  and  well connected industrialist deserving no protection of the  rent laws. Dismissing the appeal, the Court,     HELD: 1. If the appeals were to be allowed by  releasing and relaxing the rigour of the order of eviction, the matter then would have to be 507

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

remitted  back at an appropriate stage where  the  successor landlords  could  conveniently  have the  other  grounds  of eviction adjudicated upon, by overruling the objection  that the  landlord  could have filed an appeal  before  the  Rent Control Tribunal and the High Court seeking eviction of  the tenant  on grounds other than the ground on which the  evic- tion was ordered. [51 lB-C]     2.  The successor landlords are two ladies, one a  widow and  the other a divorcee, brought in the fray by  operation of law. Remitting the case back would not only be unfair and unreasonable  but time consuming and inequitous as  well  to them.  Since  almost  eighteen years have  passed  by  there should  be  an  end to the dispute. This course  is  in  the interest  of all concerned as well as the State. Instead  of putting the parties to a fresh bout of litigation the  order of eviction should, therefore, be sustained. ]51 IC-E]     3.  The  appellant is granted time ending on  March  31, 1991  for  vacating the premises subject to  his  giving  an undertaking  for  vacation on or before the  said  date  and payment of rent to the landlords. [511E-F]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 355 of 1981.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated  27.10.1980  of  the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No. 241 of 1979. G.L. Sanghi and S.L. Aneja for the Appellant.     K. Parasaran, Gopal Subramanium, Arvind Verma and  Mukul Mudgal for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     PUNCHHI,  J.  For  the view we take in  this  appeal  by special leave and leaning as we would be on our  discretion- ary  power under Article 136 of the Constitution, no  elabo- rate details are necessary of the facts involved therein and for its disposal by a brief order.     The appellant, Subhash Mehta, more than two decades  ago obtained a residential lease of the first floor in  premises bearing  No. D-32, South Extension, Part II, New Delhi  from Dr.  S.P. Choudhary (now dead) the landlord who was  himself residing  on the ground floor thereof. The settled rent  was Rs.800 per mensem. The landlord on 508 November  27, 1972 served a notice on the  tenant  demanding arrears  of rent from September 1, 1972 onwards. The  demand having  not  been  met he instituted  an  eviction  petition before  the  Rent  Controller, Delhi on March  13,  1973  on grounds of non-payment of rent as also on other grounds.  On June  1,  1973  the Rent Controller passed  an  order  under section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinaf- ter referred to as the ’Act’) directing the tenant to depos- it  arrears  of rent within one month from the date  of  the order and further to pay month to month rent by the 15th  of every  calendar  month.  The appellant,  within  the  period allowed,  deposited Rs. 10,000 to cover arrears of  rent  as well  as  to cover future rent uptill  September  15,  1973. Thereafter  neither on October 15, 1973 nor on November  15, 1973, did the tenant deposit monthly rent as required by the aforesaid  order of the Rent Controller. He was  alleged  to have  defaulted  on that count. Yet on December 1,  1973  he made  a deposit of Rs.2,800 partly covering the  default  of the previous period. The landlord took objection to the late deposit and after much debate the Rent Controller struck off the  defence of the appellant. The Rent Appellate  Tribunal,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Delhi  set aside the order of the Rent  Controller  striking out  the defence of the tenant on appeal by the  tenant  and remitted  the case back to the Rent Controller  for  further proceedings. Second appeal to the High Court of Delhi by the landlord was dismissed.     The Additional Rent Controller who became seisin of  the matter  on  remand went into all the grounds  as  originally raised in the eviction petition; the other grounds,  besides the  tenant  being in arrears of  rent,  being  sub-letting, conversion  of  the  user of premises  from  residential  to commercial, the tenant having acquired vacant possession  of a residential house in M-18, Green Park Extension, New Delhi and  for bona fide requirement of the daughter of the  land- lord who being a student of M.B.B.S, was expected to set  up medical  practice.  The Additional Rent  Controller  by  his order dated December 12, 1978 ordered eviction of the tenant on the sole ground of non-payment of future rent in terms of his  order passed under section 15(1) of the  Act,  granting the  tenant  two months’ time to vacate  the  premises.  The other grounds of eviction were rejected.     The  tenant’s  appeal before the Rent  Control  Tribunal centered  round  the  sole question of  delayed  payment  of arrears of rent and of the scope and rigour of section 15(1) of  the Act. In assailing the order of the  Additional  Rent Controller, reliance was placed by the tenant on a  judgment of  this Court in Hem Chand v. Delhi Cloth Mills,  [1977]  2 SCR 440 to contend that even if the tenant had not  strictly complied 509 the terms  of the order made under section 15(1) of the  Act in as much as depositing future rent late it was not impera- tive in all events of the defence of the tenant being struck off  and a fair amount of discretion had been left with  the Rent  Controller under section 15(7) which should have  been exercised  in  his favour and before his defence was  to  be struck off the Rent Controller had to come to the view  that his  conduct  was wilful or contumacious in  disobeying  the order made under section 15(1) of the Act, and which in  the instant  case he had failed to record. Even being  aware  of these  principles  the Rent Control Tribunal on  August  18, 1979 dismissed the appeal observing that no infirmity in the order  of the Additional Rent Controller could be found.  On the same lines and reasoning second appeal of the tenant was dismissed  by  the High Court of Delhi on October  27,  1980 keeping  maintained  the ejectment of the  tenant  for  non- compliance of the order made under section 15(1) of the Act. This  has led to the instant appeal on the grant of  special leave.     The  landlord Dr. S.P. Choudhary as hinted earlier  died in the year 1981 during the pendency of this appeal  leaving behind a widow and a daughter; the latter now being a divor- cee rearing a minor son. This is the uncontroversial  asser- tion of the successor-landlords. The eviction order in their favour has been assailed by Mr. Sanghi, learned counsel  for the tenant-appellant on the strength of the decision of this Court  in Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath and Another, [1984] 3  SCC 111  stressing  the  point that the words  ’as  required  by section  15(1) of the Act’ occurring in sub-section  (7)  of section 15 must be construed in a reasonable manner and that the  said  provision confers a wide discretion on  the  Rent Controller not to strike off the defence of the tenant which indicates  that defences could still be open to  the  tenant under the Act to claim plain protection under section  14(2) thereof.  In that case this Court ruled that the  Rent  Con- troller  necessarily by legal implication has power to  con-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

done  the default on the part of the tenant for  deposit  of future rent or to extend time for such deposit. On the  said plea  advanced on behalf of the tenant the result sought  to be  achieved is that the delay in making deposit  of  future rent  be  excused saving him from eviction. The  tenant  had before  the Rent Controller while explaining cause for  late deposit  of  future rent put up the plea  that  the  counsel present  at the time of the passing of the order under  sec- tion 15(1) in place of his engaged counsel had only intimat- ed to him about the payment of arrears of rent and not about the  deposit  of future rent by the 15th of  every  calendar month. On that basis the order of eviction was sought to  be upset  by  accepting such plea of the tenant. On  the  other hand, learned counsel for the successor-landlords 510 tactically took shelter behind the other grounds of eviction which  were rejected by the Additional Rent  Controller  and besides raising them vehemently before us projected that  in the facts and circumstances of this case and the  subsequent events  which have come by, this Court should  refrain  from interfering in the matter under Article 136 of the Constitu- tion. On such stance adopted it is plain that the ground  on which  eviction has been maintained before the Tribunal  and the High Court concurrently the successor-landlords seeming- ly  had an uphill task to have it maintained in view of  Ram Murti’s  case (supra). Yet, without conceding on that  score other grounds of eviction were pressed despite opposition by learned  counsel  for  the tenant that  these  grounds  were neither  pressed in the court of the Rent  Control  Tribunal nor in the High Court while supporting the order of eviction and  no cross appeals in these two forums were filed by  the landlord, which if serious he legitimately could. It is true that the Tribunal and the High Court are both silent on  the point.     The  order  of the Additional Rent  Controller  suggests that  the  tenant is an industrialist. His finding  is  that within the years 1971 to 1974 he was active in incorporating three  companies and that he was a proprietor of M/s.  Globe Marketing and Management Limited, a Director of M/s.  Sports Equipment  Private  Limited  and again a  Director  in  M/s. Indian  Consultants Private Limited. His further finding  is that  while  living in the demised premises he  had  floated these  companies and later taken in other directors.  In  so far as the latter two companies were concerned, this act  of the  tenant was not sub-letting, assigning or  parting  with the possession of the disputed premises as held by the  Rent Controller.  Sequelly the finding further recorded was  that there  was no misuser of the disputed premises  inasmuch  as the  respective  offices run by the  companies  therein  had caused  no damage to the premises. With regard to  the  fact that  the  tenant had acquired another premises  at  M-  18, Green Park Extension, New Delhi the Rent Controller took the view  that factually the father of the tenant  had  acquired the same and the tenant could not live in that premises with his  father as a matter of right. Lastly with regard to  the bona  fide requirement of the landlord the  Rent  Controller took  the  view  that the landlord’s  family  comprising  of himself, his wife and daughter had sufficient  accommodation in  their possession even though his daughter had to  estab- lish  practice as a doctor. The additional plea of the  suc- cessor-landlords  as given out in  their  counter-affidavits now  is that the telephone connections standing in the  name of afore-referred three companies, with which the tenant  is intimately connected, are at the demised premises as per the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Directory

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

511 and that the tenant is a rich and well:connected industrial- ist  deserving no protection of the rent  laws,  misplacedly sought by him.     We have pondered over the matter and have weighed  every aspect of the case. The facts and circumstances now emerging are that the successor-landlords are two ladies; one a widow and the other a divorcee. If we were to allow the appeal  by releasing  and relaxing the rigour of the order of  eviction relying  on Ram Murti’s case, we unhesitatingly  then  would take the step to have the matter remitted back at an  appro- priate stage where the successor-landlords could convenient- ly  have the other grounds of eviction adjudicated upon  and overrule the objection that the landlord could have filed an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal and the High Court seeking  eviction  of the tenant on grounds other  than  the ground  on  which  the eviction was  ordered.  This  course, however, appears to us to be not only unfair and  unreasona- ble  in  the facts and circumstances of this case  but  time consuming and inequitous as well to the successor  landlords who,  as said before, are two ladies brought in the fray  by operation  of  law.  Now since almost  eighteen  years  have passed by, we feel there should be an end to the dispute and this  course is in the interest of all concerned as well  as the State. Instead of putting the parties to a fresh bout of litigation we would in these circumstances prefer and opt to let remain the order of eviction sustained however on  slen- der ground, and consequently order dismissal of this  appeal but  without any order as to costs. Still we do not wish  to dislocate  the appellant abruptly, concerned as we  are  for him  also,  and for that purpose grant him  sufficient  time ending  on March 31, 1991 for vacating the premises  subject to his giving an undertaking before this Court for  vacation on  or  before the said date but on payment of rent  to  the landlords  as  has fallen due for the period uptill  and  by March 31, 1990 and future monthly rent by the tenth of  each calendar  month. Let the undertaking be filed by  March  10, 1990 in the Registry in the usual manner. P.S.S.                                                Appeal dismissed. 512