In the result, I allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the Courts below and dismiss the petition filed by the respondent landlords under Section 15 7 of the Delhi Rent Control Act leaving it open to the petitioner to make good his offer by enhancing the rent voluntarily by ten times the current rent and depositing the future rent for a period of five years, as offered by him, in advance.
The Rent Controller had definitely and precisely, fixed the date by which rent for each succeeding month had to be tendered by the appellants tenants.
The order of the Rent Controller dated 14.9.2009 was assailed by the appellants tenants before the Rent Control Tribunal.
On account of the number compliance of the order dated 21.4.2008, the respondents filed an application under Section 15 7 of the Rent Act on 28.4.2009, praying for striking out the defence of the appellants.
On the issue of usage, it was pointed out, that since the shop was number being used for running halwai business, the appellants were using LPG cylinders in the rented premises.
1 offered to pay advance rent for a years time yet the petitioner No.1 refused to accept the same.
In every proceeding of the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause a of the proviso to sub section 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 companytinue to pay or deposit, month by month, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.
It is number a matter of dispute, that arrears of rent though directed to be paid from 1.11.2007 were actually paid with effect from 1.1.2007, on 21.4.2008 itself.
The appellants entered appearance before the Rent Controller and companytested the eviction petition.
Since the orders u s 15 1 of DRC Act are to be passed on the admitted facts, the respondent is directed to pay or deposit the arrears of rent w.e.f 01.11.2007 till date Rs.66/ pm within 30 days from today and further companytinue to pay or deposit the future rent at the said rate month by month before 15th of each succeeding English Calendar month.
In making the aforesaid deposit, the appellants had mistakenly mentioned that the rent was being deposited from November, 2009, although they ought to have deposited rent from November, 2008.
Immediately on realizing the aforesaid mistake, the appellants again deposited rent before the Rent Controller for the period from November, 2008 to October 2009 on 5.5.2009.
The appellants filed a reply to the aforesaid application on 17.8.2009.
The said order was assailed by filing a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal.
SD ARC DELHI/21.04.2008 A perusal of the order dated 21.4.2008 reveals, that the Rent Controller having taken into companysideration, the assertion made in the written statement, that the appellants have already paid rent from 1.1.2007 up to October 2007, directed the appellants to pay rent only with effect from 1.11.2007.
The petitioner No.1 also stated to the respondent No.
It would number be out of place to mention that the Petitioner No.1 used to companylect rent from the respondent No.1 number every month but after 3 months or 6 months or years time.
It was only because of serious illness of respondent No.1, due to which the companynsel companyld number be companytacted by him so as to deposit the rent in the companyrt.
For the said purpose, the appellants filed a written statement on 7.2.2008, denying and disputing all the allegations made by the respondents in the eviction petition.
He did number adjust the rent already paid and has already submitted the rate of rent being too meager and the respondent No.1 was number interested to enter into any companytroversy, the rent for the period with effect from 1.1.2007 to 30.4.2008 was paid by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner No.1 against Receipt No.
Future rent was ordered to be paid every month i.e., month by month before the 15th day of each succeeding English calendar month.
The above order also directed the appellants to pay future rent at the rate of Rs.66/ per month, month by month, by the 15th day of each succeeding English calendar month.
It was also alleged, that a chabutra a companyered sitting platform measuring about 4.5 feet and a chhajja over hanging companyer measuring 7.8 feet, had also been companystructed unauthorizedly by the appellants.
In this behalf it was asserted, that the appellants had lowered the floor of the premises by approximately 3 feet below the plinth level by excavating and dismantling the flooring.
However, passing of the order was duly companymunicated through the clerk of the companynsel to the respondent No.1.
However, it is specifically denied that the respondent has made any false statement or furnished a false information before this Honble Court.
Accordingly, paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 of the abovementioned reply, are being reproduced hereunder Para 3 of the application in so far it states about companytents of the written statement is a matter of record.
Since one of the grounds on which the eviction of the appellants was sought, was on account of number payment of rent with effect from January, 2007 the Rent Controller passed an order dated 21.4.2008 under Section 15 1 of the Rent Act, requiring the appellants to deposit the undisputed arrears of rent, and to pay future rent.
By the order dated 21.4.2008, the Rent Controller had directed the appellants to deposit future rent at the rate of Rs.66/ per month, month by month, before the 15th day of each succeeding English calendar month.
The prayer made by the appellants tenants was rejected by the above Tribunal on 21.4.2010.
Additionally it was alleged, that the appellants had also raised illegal companystructions, and had thereby altered the structure of the rented shop.
The aforesaid order of the Rent Controller is being extracted hereunder E 931/2007 21.04.08 Arguments heard u s 15 1 of DRC Act.
By an order dated 24.5.2010, the Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants.
After 21.4.2008 the petitioner No.1 again companylected the rent for the month of May 2008 in the end of May 2008 but issued the receipt subsequently which was dated 27.6.2008.
After October 2008 the petitioner No.
emphasis is mine By an order dated 14.9.2009 the Rent Controller allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 15 7 of the Rent Act, and thereby, struck off the defence of the appellants in the pending eviction petition.
The shop was originally let out for selling companyd drinks, biscuits etc.
The matter has been pending disposal in this Court ever since.Dissatisfied, the appellants approached the High Court of Delhi hereinafter referred to as the High Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the appellants assailed the order passed by the Rent Controller dated 14.9.2009, as well as, the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 24.5.2010.
The respondent No.1, at the time when the order u s. 15 1 of DRC Act was passed, was number present in the Court.
Though on 21.4.2008 the respondent No.
In this behalf, it was alleged that the appellants son was using the shop for running a halwai traditional Indian sweetmeat maker business.
Herein, the order dated 21.4.2008 passed by the Rent Controller under Section 15 1 of the Rent Act, required the payment of arrears of rent claimed by the respondents with effect from 1.11.2007 upto date, at the rate of Rs.66/ per month , within 30 days i.e., by 21.5.2008 .
Before filing the aforesaid reply, on 1.5.2009 i.e., on the very day the appellants came to know of the filing of the application under Section 15 7 of the Rent Act, the appellants deposited rent before the Rent Controller, for the period from November, 2009 to July, 2010.
In fact the rent was paid from January 2007 to October 2007 to the petitioner No.1 but he deliberately did number issue any rent receipt and because the respondent had numberproof about the payment of rent in writing, to avoid any kind of companytroversy, the rent for the period with effect from January 2007 onwards was paid by respondent No.1 to petitioner No.1 vide receipt dated 21.4.2008.
1 did number accept the rent from the respondent No.2 because due to his illness the respondent No.1 was number companying to the shop for some time.
01.01.2007 and the respondent states that he has paid rent upto October, 2007.
Para 4 of the application is admitted.
Likewise, the appellants were alleged to have demolished the back wall of the shop to increase the length of the tenanted premises.
It is number a matter of dispute that the appellants rented a shop bearing number 1445 A, Dariba Kalan, Delhi, wherein the monthly payable rent is Rs.
The rate of rent and the relationship is number in dispute between the parties though the petitioner claims the arrears w.e.f.
The respondent No.1 being an old and aged person, number knowing the intricacies of law and also the repercussions of number deposit of rent every month believed the petitioner No.1 in good faith.
The appellants tenants then approached the High Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
It was also alleged, that the appellants had demolished the front door wall, and had installed a loft in the shop.
The 25 respondents jointly own the abovementioned tenanted premises.
The arrears were ordered to be paid within 30 days of 21.4.2008 .
On 28.4.2009 the petitioner No.1 taking advantage of the situation has filed the present application.
Thereafter despite request of the respondent No.1 the petitioner No.1 procrastinated the acceptance of rent and finally in the month of October 2008 he accepted the rent for the period with effect from 1.6.2008 to 31.10.2008 and again he did number issue a rent receipt.
Appellants Versus Subhash Chand Saini Ors.
1 that he may number deposit rent in the companyrt as he will directly receive the rent from him by issuing receipts.
It was also asserted, that the appellants had demolished the side pillars of the companystructed portion of the rented premises, and had also removed both the side walls on which the entire roof, and upper storeys were resting.
In November 2007, the respondents filed an eviction petition under Section 14 1 a b c and j of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act seeking repossession of the rented premises, for a variety of reasons.
For an effective determination of the companytroversy before us, it is essential to extract herein the factual position indicated by the appellants in their reply dated 17.8.2009 to the application filed by the respondents under Section 15 7 of the Rent Act .
This, according to the respondents, had damaged the old companystruction.
It is, therefore, that the appellants approached this Court, by filing a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal C number 26941 of 2011, wherein we have number granted leave.
Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Rent Controller, the appellants approached the Rent Control Tribunal.
In the evening of 21.4.2008 the petitioner No.1 personally went to the respondent No.1 and companylected the rent from him with effect from 1.1.2007 to 30.4.2008.
The rent receipt was later on issued in the month of December 2008 when the respondent No.1 asked for the same, number of times.
26941 OF 2011 Dina Nath D By Lrs.
It was, however, a fault on the part of respondent No.1 for number depositing the rent in the companyrt.
It was also asserted, that the appellants had sublet the tenanted premises to his son.
Respondents J U D G M E N T Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Leave granted.
J. S. Thakur New Delhi April 16, 2014 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
4563 OF 2014 ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. C No.
21 dated 21.4.2008 which also included the house tax for the years 2007 2008 and 2008 2009.
