LexNONIHAL SINGH versus MAYA DEVI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
551
NONIHAL SINGH
v.
MAYA DEVI
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3687-3688 of 2018)
APRIL 05, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – Delay in depositing
arrears of rent and mesne profits – Application for extension of
time and condonation of delay – In the instant case, Tribunal granted
eviction decree on 05.04.2014 on the ground of arrears of rent
with direction to the appellant-tenant to vacate the premises within
six months – On writ petition, High Court ordered tenant to deposit
arrears of rent before 31.12.2017 and mesne profits w.e.f.
01.11.2017 – Appellant could not deposit the arrears of rent within
prescribed time – Application for extension of time to deposit rent
stood dismissed on 15.01.2018 – Meanwhile landlady had filed
application for execution of decree of arrears of rent wherein the
tenant deposited the amount on 12.01.2018 in court and the said
amount was handed over to the landlady on 15.01.2018 and court
recorded full satisfaction of landlady and the file was consigned –
However, High Court dismissed the prayer for condoning the delay
in depositing the amount in writ petition filed by the appellant –
Hence the appeals – Held: It is true that amount of arrears of rent
as per order dated 01.11.2017 was to be deposited till 31.12.2017
and since the amount could not be deposited, application for
extension of time was filed – High Court did not consider that a
substantial amount in pursuance of order of the High Court in
execution proceedings was deposited on 12.01.2018 that is before
passing order of the High Court on the application for extension of
time which fact was a relevant fact – Order dated 15.01.2018 was
passed in ignorance of the said fact – Order dated 15.01.2018
does not advance substantial justice and is set aside – Similarly, an
amount of Rs.33000/- was deposited on 15.01.2018 directly in the
bank account of landlady which according to appellant was rent
for 11 months and condonation of delay was sought which was
rejected on 27.02.2018 – The circumstance that in execution
proceedings the amount was deposited and accepted by landlady
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 551
551
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
552
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
was a relevant fact for condonation of delay in depositing the amount
– Order dated 27.02.2018 is also set aside – Rent Control.
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – Plea of respondent that
there was non-compliance of Order dated 05.04.2014 as in the said
order after six months from the order, the deposit was to be made
three times of the rent – Held: Plea not sustainable – Order dated
05.04.2014 indicated that the direction was that if the tenant does
not evacuate the premises within 6 months from the date of issue of
certificate of re-possession, he shall be responsible to pay 3 times
rent to the landlady – The order dated 05.04.2014 itself mentions
that the liability to pay three times rent shall accrue after six months
from the date of issue of certificate of re-possession – There is no
material to indicate as to when certificate of re-possession was issued
– Secondly, the order made by the Rent Tribunal as well as Rent
Appellate Tribunal stood superseded by the order of the High Court
dated 01.11.2017 which was passed with the consent of both the
parties – High Court in its order dated 01.11.2017 recorded terms
and conditions for permitting the appellant to continue in occupation
of the premises in question till 30.04.2019 – The terms and conditions
recorded in the order by the High Court are clearly in variance
with the decree of the Rent Tribunal and the Rent Appellate Tribunal
– What was required to be adhered to are the directions of the High
Court dated 01.11.2017 and not the order of the Tribunal as claimed
for the respondent – Appellant is directed to be put back in
possession of the premises – The appellant shall continue to deposit
the mesne profit as per order of the High Court dated 01.11.2017
and in the event of any default committed by the appellant, it shall
be open for the respondent-landlady to take appropriate
proceedings against the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
Nos. 3687-3688 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 27.02.2018 and 15.01.2018
of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBWMA
No. 80 of 2018 and 9 of 2018 respectively.
Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms.Usha Nandini V., Advs. for the Appellant.
Vedant Singh, Michelle Gomes, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Advs.
for the ReExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.