HEM CHAND versus THE DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD.

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 241 · Decided: 02-08-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
HEM CHAND 
v. 
THE DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. 
& ORS. 
August 2, 1977 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. S. KAILASAM JJ.] 
241 
Drlhi Rent Control Act, 1958-ss. 14(1), 15(1) and 15(7)-Scope of. 
Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 provides that no tenant 
could be evicted excep! on an application made to the Rent Controller for an 
A 
B 
order for recovery of ~ssession on one or more grounds specified in the section. 
Oause (a) to the proVISO provides that if the tenant has neither paid nor tendered 
the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two 
C 
months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been 
served on him by the landlord in the manner prescribed, the landlord can apply 
for recovery of possession. Sub-section (2) provides that no order for 
recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified 
in cl. (a) of the proviso if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by 
s. 1'. Under s. 15(1) the Rent Controller shall make an order directing the 
tenant to pay arrears of rent with a direction that he should c.ontinue to pay or 
deposit the rent month by month by the fifteenth of each succeeding month. 
Sub-section (6) lays down that if a tenant makes payment or deposit as required 
D 
by sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (3), no order shall be made for the recovery of possession 
on the ground of default in· the payment of rent by the tenant. Sub-section (7) 
provides that if the tenant fails to make payment or deposit as required by sub .. 
s. ( 1) the Controller may order! the defence against eviction to be struck out and 
proceed with the hearing of the application. 
1be landlord-respondent filed an application under s. 14 of the Act for the 
eviction of the tenant-appellant on grounds of non-payment of rent and unauthoris-
ed subletting. In compliance with the directions of the Additional Rent Controller 
E 
the tenant paid the ar:rears of rent upto a date but failed to deposit the rent 
month by month whereupon the landlord made an application under s. 15(7) for 
striking out the tenant's defence against eviction. Granting the application the 
Rent Controller struck off the tenant's defence on the ground that on the date 
of the order (October 15, 1965) the tenant was in default. 
On November 26. 
1965 1he Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on the ground of sub· 
letting. 
The. Tribunal a1lowed the tenant's appeals against the orders of the Rent 
Controller. 
F 
On appeal by the landlord the High Court held that when the tenant failed 
to make a deposit of the future rents in compliance with the ordet under s. 15(1) 
the right to obtain recovery of possession of the premises accrued to the landlord 
and the Rent Controller had no power to condone the defalllt of the tenant in 
the payment of arrears of rent and to refuse to grant an order. 
Allowing the tenant's appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court, 
FIELD: l(a) The High Court was in error in allowing the application of 
G 
the landlord on the basis of the failure of the tenant to comply with the order 
undet s. 15(1). The High Court was also in error in holding that the 
right 
to obtain an onler for recovery of possession accn1ed to the landlord. [246HJ 
(b) "The High Court ought to have considered and decided in the 
appeal 
whether the striking out of the defence by the Rent Controller was right or 
not. If the striking out was right then as the Rent Controller had proceeded 
with the hearing of the application and passed an order directing possession to 
the landlord it ought to uphold the order. In. the event of the High Court 
holding that the order striking out the defence was erroneous then the order 
H 
directing recovery of possession should be set aside and the petition heard by 
the Rent Controller after providing an opportunity to the tenant to raise 
his 
defence. (247BJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
242 
SUPREME COURT REPO&TS 
(1978] 1 s.c.r. 
2(a) The landlord's contention that the word "may" in s. 15(7) should be 
construed as "shall" and that in the event of non-complian~ with s. 15(1) the 
defence against eviction should be struck out, has no force. 
In the context of 
s. 15(7) it is not necessary to construe the word "may" as "shall". 
It is also 
in keeping with the legislative intent that a discretion is confeirred on the Con-
troller either to strike out the defence or not. 
[245GJ 
(b) It is clear from s. 15(7) that the enquiry wil
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.