RUBBER HOUSE versus EXCELLSIOR NEEDLE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 986 · Decided: 10-03-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
RUBBER HOUSE 
v . 
. EXCELLSIOR NEEDLE INDUSTRIES PVT. LID. 
MARCH 10, 1989 
[L.M. SHARMA ANDS. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.] 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973-
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1976--Section 
13(2)(i)/Rules 4(c), 5(1) and 6--Tenant-Eviction of on ground of 
arrears of rent-Non-mentioning of quantum of arrears of rent-
Whether involves invalidating consequences on eviction petition. 
· Statutory Construction-Mandatory and directory provisions of 
statute-Distinction and consequences of 
This is a tenant's appeal filed after obtaining Special Leave from 
D 
the Court. The Respondent-landlord of tenanted premises (i.e. two 
sheds) filed a petition for ejectment of the appellant from the premises in 
question before the Rent Controller. According to the Respondent-
landlord the monthly rent payable by the appellant was Rs.950 p.m. which 
was liable to be enhanced nnder the provisions of Haryana Urban (Con-
trol of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 from Rs.950 to Rs.ll42 p.m. 
E 
Accordingly, the respondent caused a notice to be given to the appellant 
claiming rent@ Rs.1142 w.e.f. 26.6.1974 till June 1977 and since the 
appellant defaulted in making payment of the rent, he was liable to be 
ejected from the demised premises. The tenant denied that the rent was 
liable to be enhanced as claimed by the landlord. He further asserted 
that he had already paid rent upto March 1975 by means of cheques and 
F 
that he had tendered the arrears of rent together with interest and costs 
as assessed by the Rent Controller on 5.12.1977. On this reasoning he 
urged that he was not liable to be evicted on the ground taken in the 
Petition. The landlord in the replication denied the receipt of rent for 
the period from May 1974 to November, 1977@ Rs.ll42 p.m. Alterna-
tively he claimed that the rent to the extent of Rs.36,IOO was doe to him 
G 
from the appellant@ Rs.950 p.m. from 1st May, 1974 to June 30, 1977. 
The Rent Controller held that the landlord-respondent was not 
entitled to recover the rent @ Rs.ll42 p.m. but only Rs.950 p.m. as 
agreed between the parties and the appellant has failed to pay the rent 
from 1.4.1975. Accordingly, the Rent Controller directed the ejectment 
H of the appellant from the premises by granting him two months time. 
986 
\;.( 
t 
''. 
RUBBER HOUSE v, EXCELLSIOR INDUSTRIES 
987 
"' 
The appellate-authority having affirmed the order of the Rent Con-
A 
' 
!roller, the appellant filed a Civil Revision before the High Court under 
Suh-s. (6) of Sec. 15 of the Act. Before the High Court it was urged by 
the appellant that since in the application for ejectment no specific 
amount of arrears of rent due was mentioned as contemplated by Cl. (c) 
of Rule 4 and Clause (1) of Rule 5 of the Haryana Urban (Control of 
Rent and Eviction) Rules he could not be evicted. Finding no substance 
B 
'" 
in the said contention, the High Court rejected the Civil Revision. Hence 
this appeal. 
.. -( 
The appellant raised two contention before this Court viz., that 
the High Court has ignored to note the statutory obligation cast on the 
Rent Controller as per the proviso attached to Sec. 13(2)(1) of the Act c 
requiring him to calculate and determine the quantum of arrears of 
.. 
rent; even at the first instance has not been complied with and (ii) that 
the application for ejectment was not in accordance with the mandatory 
provisions of Rule 4( c) 5(1) and 6 of the Rules framed under the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
D 
HELD: The proviso to Sec. 13(2)(i) requires the tenant to pay or 
tender the actual arrears of rent, within 15 days of the first hearing of 
""' 
the application for ejectment after due service alongwith the interest to 
be calculated by the Controller at 8 per cent per annum on such arrears 
together with such costs of the application, if any, as may be allowed by E 
the Controller. [994B I 
' 
When there is a statntory obligation on the tenant either to pay or 
I 
tender the arrears of rent within a period of 15 days of the first hearing 
~ of the application for ejectment after due notice it is for him to calculate 
-t 
the exact arrears of rent due and to pay or tender the same and if the F 
tenant fails to do so he is deemed to have not paid or made the valid 
tender of the rent. [994D I 
The- non-compliance of Rule 4(c) i.e. the non-mentioning of the 
quantum of arrears of rent, does involve no invalidatiitg consequence 
and also
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.