LexRAGHUNANDAN SARAN ASHOK SARAN & ORS. ETC.ETC. versus PEAREY LAL WORKSHOP (P) LTD. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
537
~SARAH
ASllllt SARAH & ORS. B'l'C. nc.
v.
1'EAllY W. WUS'lllP (P) LTD. B'l'C.
APRIL 15, 1986
[R.B. MISRA. AND M.M. DUTr, JJ,)
•
""
Ddhi Rent
Control Act,
1958,
a.
14(2)
-
Tenant
-
....
clepo.tt!ng arrears of rent - When entitled to protection of
non""eviction.
n,. appellants-landlord• filed three eviction petitions
t apiut the three n11pondente-ten.ants in rHpect of different
portf.Oll.I of • lluUdf.111 dtuattd in New Delhi under section
)"13(1) of the Dtlh! and Ajar Rent Control Act 1952 (Act of
l P5U on till JJ'Olllld of 110n-paygient of rent. During the
pe!ldtncy of the proceedings, the U.lhi Rent Control Act 1958
(Act of 1958) c.. into force,
The re1pondents--tenants,
hoftqr, depolited the arrears and got the benefit · of
Mll..,.vicUon ~r section 13(2) of the Act of 1952 and the
petf.tf.01111 Wl!re dis..ts1ed.
IP·
The appellants-landlords again filed three petitions for
evictiOll
of
the
respondents
on
the
ground
that
the
f9tpolldenta-t!H!anu had co.Utted a 11econd default in the
N)'Dlnt of 11rrur• of rent. ?bit re11pondent• depolited the
1rr11rf of rent in ti11111 as contemplsted by section 15 of the
Act of 1958 and 11ought the protection of non-eviction within
--4 the ..,ning of aub-section 2 of section 14 of the Act of 1958.
The appellants contended before the Additional Rent Controller
,. that. the respondents had derived benefit of non-eviction under
stction 13(2) of the Act of 1952 once and they were not
entitled to gtt the sue benefit under section 14(2) twice
over in view of the proviso to 1ub-section (2) of section 14
of the Act of 1958, It was ar'1Jld on behalf of the respondents
that they had depolited the arrears of rent aa provided by e.
15 of the Act of 1958 and therefore they were entitled to get
the benefit of sub-stction 2 of 11ectf.on 14 and the benafit
~--'f{derived by the respondents under section 13(2) of the Act of
1952 will not stand in the wey of the respondents getting the
benefit of 11ub-section 2 of section 14 of the Act of 1958, The
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
538
SUPREME CO~RT REPORTS
[19861 2 s.c.R.
Additional Rent Controller dismissed the petitions holding y-""
that
the
respondents
were
entitled to the benefit of
sub-section 2 of section 14 of the Act on account of the
deposit made by them in pursuance of the provisions of section
15 of the Act of 1958 and that the benefit once derived by the
respondents under section 13(2) of the Act of 1952 will not
attract the proviso to sub-section 2 and they are entitled to
the benefit of non-eviction under sub-section 14(2) of the Act
of 1958, The Rent Control Tribunal and the High Court4 •
confirmed the order of the Additional Rent Controller in the
first and second appeal respectively.
-
Dismissing the appeals by the appellants,
HELD:
1. The respondents cannot be deprived of the
benefit of section 14(2) of the 1958 Act merely because they-,'
had obtained similar benefit under sub-section 2 of section 13
of the Act of 1952. (546 F-G]
2(i). If the words of statute are clear, there is no
question of interpretation. Gr8111118tical construction has been
accepted as the golden rule. (546 F]
2(ii).
Sub-section 2 of s.
14 of the 1958
Ac~
contemplates to give the benefit to a tenant of non-evictio11t
if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by section
15. Obviously, therefore, sub-section 2 contemplates that the
,..
benefit of non-eviction under this sub-section can be given
only to a tenant who has made a deposit as required
by ~
section 15 of the Act of 1958. Therefore, the deposit made
under section 13(2) of the Act of 1952 has been completely~
excluded by sub-section 2. The proviso to sub-section 2 also .
puts a bar on deriving the benefit under this sub-section i.e.
sub-section 2 of section 14; thus if the expressions "deposit,
under-section 15 in sub-section 2 of section 14" and "such
benefit" in the proviso thereto is given a meaning,
there is
no escape from the conclusion that no second benefit can be
given to a tenant if he had already received the benefit under
sub-section 2 by
deposit made
in accordance with the
provisions of section 15 of the Act of 1958. (545 C-E]
'~-•
3.
Sub-section 2 of s. 57 is a ssving clause and
provides that notwithstanding the repeal of the Act of 1952,
RAGRUNANDAN SARUP v, PEAREY LAL [MISRA, J,]
539
..._,,,.all suits and other proceedings under the said Act pending at
the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.