JAIN MOTOR CAR CO., DELHI versus SMT. SWAYAM PRABHA JAIN AND ANR

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 663 · Decided: 15-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
... 
JAIN MOTOR CAR CO., DELHI 
v. 
SMT. SWAYAM PRABHA JAIN AND ANR.. 
FEBRUARY 15, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND 
G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. 
A 
B 
Sections 14(1), 14(2), 15(1), 15(7)-Eviction petition-Tenant in ar-
C 
rears of rent-Order by Rent Controller under Section 15(1)-Non compliance 
by tenant-Liable to be evicted-High Cowt co11fim1i11g the eviction by striking 
out the defence of tenant-Held Unjustified-Power of Rent Controller and 
T1ibunal under Section 15(7) is absolute discretion. 
Appellant was the tenant of the respondent. Respondent filed a D 
eviction petition before the Rent Controller, Delhi on the grounds of 
default in payment of rent and sub-letting. Appellant was ordered to 
deposit the arrears of rent and also deposit the future rent every month 
by 15th of each month. Upon the failure of the appellant to deposit the 
rent for the month of February by 15th March, and instead depositing it E 
on 30th March, the respondent filed an application to strike out the 
defence of the appellant under Section 15(7), which was rejected followed 
by an appeal dismissed by the Rent Tribunal. Subsequently the respondent 
filed a second appeal in the High Court. 
In the mean time, the main eviction petition was allowed and the F 
appellant was ordered to be evicted on the grounds that the appellant 
committed default in not depositing the rent within the stipulated period 
and also that the Rent Controller had no power to condone the delay or 
to extend the time for depositing the rent. Tribunal dismissed the appeal 
whereby appellant filed a second appeal in the High Court. 
G 
The High Court allowed the respondent's appeal with a finding that 
the appellant had committed default in depositing the rent for the moQth 
of February by 15th March and was therefore liable for eviction. It also 
struck off the defence of the appellant following the decision of Supreme 
Court in Hema Chand v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., AIR (1977) H 
663 
664 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
SC 1986 with an opinion that neither the Rent Controller nor the Tribunal 
were not justified jn refusing to strike off the defence of the appellant. 
B 
c 
Appellants filed these appeals and contended before the court that 
interpretation of Section 15(1) and 15(7) by the High Court was erroneous 
and contrary to the decisions of this court. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. Sections 14(1), 14(2) and 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control 
Act 1958, provide two opportunities to the tenant to avoid eviction. The 
first is contemplated by Section 14(1) under which if the tenant pays to the 
landlord the entire amount of arrears of rent demanded from him by the 
landlord within two months from the date on which a notice of demand is 
served upon, it would not be possible for the landlord to institute the 
proceedings for his eviction on the ground under Section 14 of the Act. The 
second opportunity is provided to him after the institution of the proceed-
D ings by Section 14(2) which provides that no order for the recovery of 
possession on the ground of default in payment of rent shall be made if 
the tenant has deposited or made payment of the rent in accordance with 
the provisions of Section 15 under which the Rent Controller can call upon 
the tenant to pay to the landlord or to deposit in his court, within one 
E 
F 
month from the date of the order, the arrears of rent calculated at the rate 
at which it was last paid for the whole of the period for which the arrears 
were legally recoverable from him including the period subsequent thereto 
and further to pay or deposit continuously, month by month, by the 15th 
of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. 
Apparently, the terms of Section 15(1) appear to be imperative. [669-D-F] 
1.2. The consequence of non-deposit or noncompliance of the order 
made under Sections 15(1) is indicated in Section 15(7) wherein it is 
provided that the Controller may order the defence of the tenant to be 
struck out and proceed with the hearing of the landlord's petition for 
G eviction. [669-G] 
1.3. The High Court was not justified in relying upon the decision of 
this court in Hema Chand's case as it shall be deemed to have been 
overruled or lost its efficacy as a binding decision in view of the three 
Judges Bench decisions in Shyamcharan's case and Kam/a Devi's case. The 
H Two Judges Bench in Ram Murthy's 

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