ATMA RAM versus SHAKUNTALA RANI

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1071 · Decided: 30-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
ATMA RAM 
v. 
SHAKUNTALA RANI 
AUGUST 30, 2005 
[B.P. SINGH AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956, Sections 27 and 14(J)(a)-Refasal of 
landlord to accept rent-Proper remedy available with tenant-Held: Tenant 
A 
B 
can deposit same in the Court of Rent Controller u/s. 27-Deposit made 
somewhere else shall not be treated as a valid payment/tender of arrears of C 
rent and tenant would held to be in default. 
Statutory law-Specific provision-Deviation from-Permissibility a/-
Held : If a specific procedure is provided under the provision, deviation 
therefrom is not permissible. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 227--Consurrentfinding a/Courts 
below-Revisionaljurisdiction-Exercise of-Scope-Held: I/there is serious 
error of law committed by courts below, then High Court can exercise 
revisional jurisdictioh under Article 227. 
Appellant is the tenant of the respondent. According to him, he sent 
a money order remitting the rent payable for February, 1992 but landlord 
refused to accept. Thereafter he again sent the money orders, but every 
D 
E 
time respondent refused to accept the same. In these circumstances in the 
month of January, 1995 he deposited the arrears ofrent under the Punjab p 
Reliefoflndebtedness Act, 1934. Respondent refused to receive the deposit 
made. Consequently the petition under Punjab Act was disposed of and 
appellant was allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by him. 
Respondent issued notice to the tenant for payment of arrears, of rent. 
In response, tenant deposited rent for the period February 1, 1995 to July, 
1996 u/s. 27 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956. The arrears of rent so G 
tendered excluded rent for the period February, 1992 to January, 1995 
which the tenant had deposited under Punjab Act. Respondent filed 
eviction suit for non-payment of rent which was dismissed by ARC which 
was confirmed by the RC Tribunal. Respondent successfully moved petition 
., under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 
H 
1071 
1072 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
In appeal to this court, appellant contended that since the deposit 
B 
c 
was made in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Act treating 
the arrears of rent as debt due to the landlord, there was no default on 
the part of the appellant. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In Rent control Legislations ifthe tenant wishes to take 
advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Act, he must strictly comply 
with the requirements of the Act. If he fails to do so he cannot take 
advantage of the benefit conferred to such a provision. [1081-B] 
1.2. The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956 prescribes what must be done 
by a tenant if the landlord does not accept rent tendered by him within the 
specified period. The tenant is required to deposit the rent in the Court of 
the Rent Controller giving the necessary particulars as required by sub-
section (2) of Section 27. There is, therefore, a specific provision which 
D provides the procedure to be followed in such a contingency. In view of the 
this it would not be open to a tenant to resort to any other procedure. If the 
rent is not deposited in the Court of the Rent Controller as required by 
Section 27 of the Act, and is deposited somewhere else, it shall not be treated 
as a valid payment/tender of the arrears of rent within the meaning of the 
E Act and consequently the tenant must be held to be in default. [1082-E, FJ 
F 
1.3. The High Court was right for the period February 1, 1992 to 
January 13, 1995. The deposit made under the provisions of the Punjab 
Act was no avail in view of the express provisions of Section 27 of the Act. 
[1082-G) 
Mangat Rai and Another v. Kidar Nath and Others, [1980) 4 SCC 276, 
distinguished. 
Shri Vidya Prachar Trust v. Pandit Basant Ram, [1969) 1 SCC 835; 
G Ku/deep Singh v. Ganpat Lal and Another, [1996) 1SCC243; Jagat Prasad 
v. Distt. Judge, Kanpur and Others, [1995) Supp. 1 SCC 318; M Bhaskar 
v. J. Venkatarama Naidu, [1996) 6 SCC 228; Ram Ragas Taparia v. Ram 
Chandra Pal, 1989) 1 SCC 257 and£. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy (Dead) by 
Lrs. and Others, 12003) 1 SCC 123, referred to. 
H 
2. The submission of appellant that High Court ought not to have 
,· 
ATMA RAM v. SHAKUNTALA RANI [B.P. SINGH, J.] 
1073 
exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution A 
of India in view of the fact that the two courts below had concurrently 
found in favour of the appellant is misconceive

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.