M. M. CHAWLA versus J. S. SETHI

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 390 · Decided: 15-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

390 
M. M. CHAWLA 
A 
v. 
J. S. SETIII 
. 
September 15, 1969 
(J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAM! AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.j 
B 
Delhi R.,<;nl Control Act 1958-Suit for ejectment for non·pay111ent 01 
rrnt for three consecutire nzonths-Tenant in- written state1nent c/ai1nin·• 
ti.talion of standard rent-Such claim 111ade Gfter period of lbnitation laid 
dn~·n in s. 12 cannot be entertaine'd-Ss. 4, 5, 6 or 15(3) do not support 
c/011-.1-Benefit under s. 14(2) for a second tilne barred by proviJo tu 
iub-1ection. 
The appellant wns the tenant since before 1958 of cre!Jlin premises in 
Delhi belonging to the respondent. The latter filed a proceeding for eject· 
ing the appellant under s. 14( I) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on 
1be plea of non-payment of rent for seven months. Persuant to the direc-
tion of the Rent Controller the appe!lant paid the arrears under s. 14(:?) 
of the Act and the proceeding was disposed of. The appellant ·~•in oom· 
mitted default in payment of rent for three consecutive months and the 
respondent again filed a fresh proceedin.I! for his ejectment under s. 14(1 ). 
Jn his written statement the appellant asked the Rent Cohtroller to fi.~ tht! 
.standard rant of the premises and further to give him agaiO the benefit of 
s. 14(2). The Rent Controller rejected these picas and passed an order 
in ejectment. 
Appeals before the Rent Control Tribunal and the High 
Court failed. In appeal by special leave before this Court the appellant 
contended that the order of the Rent Controller \\'as illc,gal 
because he 
failed to fix the standard rent as claimed by the appelalnt. He also con-
tended that the limitation period prescribed in s. 12 of the Act for an appli-
cation for fixation of of standard rent did not apply where the claim \\as 
made as a defence in a suit for ejectmcnt under s. I4(1)(C), and that in 
any cveqt he was entitled to .the benefit of s. 14(2). 
HELD : (i) The nppellanfs plea that the Rent Controller was bound 
to fix the standard rent when the appellant iskcd for its fixation in his 
\vi"itten statement must be rejected. 
(a) The prohibition in ss. 4 and 5 of the Act operates only after the 
standard rent has been fixed and not before. 
Until the Rent Controller 
has fixed the standard rent under s. 9. the contiact between the landlord 
and t~nant determines the linbility. 
Section 6 cnnnot be interpreted to 
mean that standard rent can be regarded as fixed without an order from 
the Controller. [400 F-H) 
(b) Whens. 15(3) ~efers to a case in which there is a "dispute as to 
the amount payable by the tenant" the dispute referred to is about con-
tractual rent payable and not about the standard rent. 
The expression 
'"having regard to the provisions of the Act" has reference to ss. 9 and I:!.. 
The scheme of suh-s. (3) of s. 15 is that the interim rent will be paid 
at the rate drdered by the Controller and if befor~ the procecdi.ng is dis-
pOsed of standard rent is fixed by the Controller 1n an apphcatlon under 
s. J 2, then in order to ohtain the benefit of s. 6 the. t~nant must pay the 
arrears calculated on the basis of the standard rent w1~h1n one month f~on1 
the date on which the standard rent is fixed o'r within such further t1n1c 
as the Controller may allow. [402 B-G) 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
M. M. CHAWLA V. J. S. SETHI (Shah, J.) 
391 
If in a proceeding under s. 14(1) (a) the tenant raises by way of 
defence a contention that the standard rent be determined the Controller 
may treat that as an application under s. 12 and deal wih it accordina 
to law. But the Act ~onfers no power under s. 15(3) upon the Controlle:'. 
The power to determine standard rent is 
exercisable under s. 12 
only. 
[402 Bl 
(c) Acceptance of the appellant's contention would lead to anomalous 
results. 
Under s. 12 standard re:nt may be given retrospective operation 
for not more than one yca'r. But if a tenant is in arrears for more than one 
year, on the contention of the appellant, the tenant would be liable to 
pay arrears at the rate of standard rent determined for a period longer than 
one year before the date on which he made a claim in his written state-
n1ent fdr determination of standard rent and may be entitled to reopen 
closed transactions. 
The legislature could not havo intended that the 
tenant in default should be entitled to evade the statutory period of limita-
tion prescribed by the expedient of refusing to make an application so as 
to obtain an advantage to whi

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