DINA NATH (D) BY LRS. &ANR. versus SUB HASH CHAND SAINI & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 1564 · Decided: 16-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

B 
[2014] 14 S.C.R. ·1564 
DINA NATH (D) BY LRS. &ANR. 
v. 
SUB HASH CHAND SAINI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No,4563 of 2014) 
APRIL 16, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR AND JAGDISH SING!i KHEHAR, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - s.15(7) -Application 
C under - By landlord - For striking out the defence of the 
tenants taken by them in eviction proceedings - On the 
ground that there was delay in depositing the future rent as 
directed by Rent Controller- Propriety of- HELD: In view of 
difference of opinion, matter referred to three Judge Bench -
D Per Khehar, J.: - Appeal liable to be dismissed -
The 
discretion u/s. 15(7), in the facts of the case, was rightly 
exercised by the competent authority by striking out the 
defence of the tenant - Per Thakur, J.: Appeal· lia~le to be 
allowed -
The facts of the case do not suggest any 
E negligence, defiance or contumacious non-payment of the 
amount due to the landlord, to render the tenant defenceless. 
Referring the matter to three Judge Bench, the 
Court 
F 
Held: 
Per Khehar, J. (Dismissing the appeal): 
1. The power vested uls. 15(7) of the Rent Act to 
strike off the defence of a tenant, is discretionary and 
G not mandatory. Therefore every violation in 
implementation of the direction(s) issued by a Rent 
Controller u/s. 15(1) of the Rent Act, will not ipso facto 
lead to the striking out the defence of a tenant. A Rent 
Controller must exercise his discretion, keeping in mind 
H 
1564 
DINA NATH (D) BY LRS. & ANR. v. SUBHASH CHAND 
1565 
SAINl&ORS. 
the nature of the non-compliance. If the non-compliance A 
is not serious, or is based on good reason, a Rent 
Controller would not strike off the defence of the tenant. 
· Only when the non-compliance of the order passed by 
the Rent Controller u/s. 15(1) of the Rent Act, depicts 
irrational disregard to the order, or when the non-
B 
compliance is repeated, or when no justification has been 
expressed for the same, or for such other similar 
reason(s), the discretion vested in s.15(7) of the Rent Act, 
would entitle the Rent Controller to strike off the defence 
of a tenant. Judicial discretion exercised in such a matter C 
mu.st be tempered with self-restraint, keeping in mind, 
that striking out a tenant's defence is an exceptionally 
harsh step, which ought not be taken in a routine and 
casual manner. The Court must carefully evaluate the D 
facts of the given case, before exercising its discretion. 
[Para 11][1587-D-H; 1588-A) 
2. Payments made by the appellants-tenants, for 
future rent payable upto 15.4.2009 (for the month of 
March, 2009), after the date of filing of the application E 
are not relevant, for determining the issue in hand i.e. 
striking out the defence of the tenants. The date on 
which the Rent Controller passed the order striking out 
the defence of the appellants-tenants, i.e.14.9.2009, has 
absolutely no nexus to the consideration contemplated F 
in s.15(7) of the Rent Act. S. 15(7) of the Rent Act does 
not contemplate condonation of payments made in 
violation of the directions issued by the Rent Controller, 
by subsequent payments, even where the tenant accepts 
to make a voluntary payment, many folds more than what G 
is due to the landlord. The only exception is when there 
is a reasonable explanation for delayed payment. 
[Para 17][1595-D-G] 
H 
1566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014) 14 S.C.R. 
A 
3. In the present case, the appellants treated the 
directions of the Rent Controller dated 21.4.2008, with 
absolute casualness. This is not a case of a single lapse, 
but of persistent repeated and unrelenting default in the 
payment of future rent, for all the months intervening the 
B date when the order u/s.15(1) of the Rent Act was passed, 
and the date when the application u/s. 15(7) was filed by 
the respondents-landlords. It is not possible to condone 
such indifference, insensitivity, disinterest and apathy 
to judicial directions. Judicial discretion in such a matter, 
C taking into consideration the defaults committed by the 
appellants-tenants, was legitimately exercised by the 
Courts below, by striking out the defence of the 
appellants-tenants. The legislative purpose was, to curb 
0 
tendencies of tenants, from abusing the legal process. 
[Paras 16 and 18][1594-F-H; 1595-A-B; 1596-B] 
E 
F 
Miss Santosh Mehta vs. Om Prakash and Ors. 
(1980) 3 sec 610: 1980 (3) SCR 325; Kam/a 
Devi vs. Vasdev (1995) 1 SCC 356: 1994 (6) 
Suppl. SCR 603; Jain Motor Car Co., Delhi vs. 
Swayam Prabha Jain (1996
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.