BHARAT DEEP SETHI versus SONIA TAK.KAR

Citation: [2017] 10 S.C.R. 531 · Decided: 12-10-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 10 S.C.R. 531 
BHARAT DEEP SETHI 
v. 
SONIA TAK.KAR 
( CivilAppeal Nos.16809-16810of2017) 
OCTOBER 12,2017 
[R. BANUMATHI AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction - Suit for eviction by respondent-
landlord - Application filed by appellant-tenant before Rent 
Controller seeking leave to defend, dismissed __: Revision petition c 
filed by tenant before High Court wherein vide interim orders it was 
directed to pay Rs.1,25,0001- p.m. w.e.f 711' June, 2017 till the end 
of month of.July, 2017 and continue to pay the said amount w.e.f 
the month of August, 2017 - On appeal, held: Without going into 
the merits of the case, tenant is directed to pay Rs.40,000/- p.m. 
from the month of June, 2017, toward~ use and occupation -Arreat:~ D 
@ Rs.40,000/- p.m. from June 2017 shall be paid to the landlord 
withi/1 a period of four weeks' after deduction of the amount already 
paid - The tenant shall continue to pay rent @ Rs.40,0001- -
Impugned orders set aside - Howey.e1; an opportunity should be · 
qfforded to the tenant to raise all the c~ntentionslissues - Matter 
E 
remitted back to High Court for considering the revision petition 
afresh - Till the matter is finally disp/ised of by the High Court, no 
coercive· steps shall be taken by landlord. 
.I 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Without going into the merits of the rival 
F 
contentions, the appellant-tenant is directed to pay an amount of 
Rs.40,000/- per month from the month of June, 2017, towards 
use and occupation and the same shall be directly paid to the 
respondent-landlord. The arrears at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per 
month from June, 2017 shall be paid to the landlord within a period G 
of four weeks deducting the amount ·already paid by the tenant. 
The tenant shall continue to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 40,000/-
to the landlord. [Para 5) [533-D] 
2. An opportunity should be afforded to the appellant-tenant 
to raise all the contentions/ issues ... T:he matter is remitted back 
531 
H 
532 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I 0 S.C.R. 
A 
to the High Court for consideration afresh. The High Court is 
requested to take up the main revision and dispose it of at an 
early date preferably within three months from the date of receipt 
of this order. The above order is passed without prejudice to the 
contentions of the both parties and all the contentions arc left 
B open. Till the matter is finally disposed of by the High Court, no 
coercive steps shall be taken by the landlord. (Para 6) [533-E-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. l 6809-
16810of20l7. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2017 in CM No. 25602/ 
C 2017 in RC. REV. No. 102/2017 and25.07.2017 in CM No. 26153/2017 
in RC. Rev. No. 102/2017 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. 
Rajiv K. Garg, Ashish Garg, Rajeev Kapoor, Harsh Nagar, 
. T. L. Garg, Advs. for the Appellants. 
D 
Sudhir Mendiratta, Adv. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals have been filed against the interim impugned 
E orders dated 21" July, 2017 in C.M.No.25602/2017 and in RC.Review 
No.102/2017 dated 25'h July, 2017, in and by which the High Court 
directed the appellant-tenant to pay an amount ofRs.1,25,000/-per month 
with effect from 7°1 June, 2017 till the end of the month July, 2017 and 
also continue to pay the said amount to the respondent-landlord with 
F 
effect from the month of August, 2017. 
3. Brief facts are that virtue ofan unregistered lease deed executed 
on 13 111 March, 2000, the appellant-tenant is on rent in the suit property 
being Shop No. I, situated on the ground floor, 219 Roop Nagar, Delhi. 
The respondent-landlord claims to have purchased the property by virtue 
ofa registered sale deed dated 07.02.2011 from the trust. The respondent-
G landlord has filed the suit for eviction before the learned Rent Controller 
for requirement of her son. The appellants had filed an application seeking 
leave to defend on the ground that there exists no landlord-tenant 
relationship. By the order dated 28.06.2016 the Rent Controller dismissed 
the application and declined leave to defend. Being aggrieved, the 
H appellant-tenant approached the High Court. By the impugned order, 
BHARAT DEEP SETHI v. SONIA TAKK.AR 
533 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
the High CoUit has directed the appellant-tenant to pay a sum ofRs.1.25 
A 
Lacs per month. 
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at len
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.