SARLA GOEL & ORS. versus KISHAN CHAND

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 481 · Decided: 08-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 10 S.C.R. 481 
_. 
SARLA GOEL & ORS. 
A 
-
v. 
KISHAN CHAND 
(Civil Appeal No. 4162 of 2009) 
JULY 8, 2009 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958- ss. 27, 14(1)(a) rw s. 14(2) 
- Default in payment of rent - Tenant availing benefit of s. 
14(2) rw s. 15 - Subsequently, committing second default in c 
payment of rent - Refusal of landlord to accept the rent 
tendered by tenant - Eviction on the ground of second default 
uls. 14(1)(a) rlw proviso to s. 14(2) - Set aside by High Court 
• 
- Sustainability - Held: Not sustainable - Tenant having once 
availed the benefit uls. 14(2) is not entitled to such benefit in 
D 
case if it is held to be a second default - Word 'may' occurring 
in s. 27 shall be construed as 'shall', thus, tenant shall deposit 
rent after refusal by landlord - Tenant did not deposit the rent 
with Rent Controller in the manner required u/s.27 for the said 
. 
period after refusal by landlord -It committed second default 
E 
in payment of rent and is liable to be evicted - Order of High 
Court set aside - Eviction order by Rent Controller restored. 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal is whether the respondent-tenant had defaulted 
F 
in payment of rent inasmuch as he had not deposited the 
rent with the Rent Controller for the said period after the 
refusal by the appellant-landlord in the manner required 
under s.27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. 
• 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control 
Act, 1958 is a ground for eviction of a tenant for default 
in payment of rent. lnspite of that, protection has been 
*' 
481 
H 
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A given under section 15 of the Act to the tenant to avail of 
the protection given by the Legislature by depositing rent 
in the manner indicated in section 15 of the Act. However, 
proviso to section 14(2) of the Act takes away the right 
of a tenant of the benefit of sub-section (2) of section 14 
B if the tenant having obtained such benefit once in respect 
of any premises and makes a further default in payment 
of rent of those premises for three consecutive months. 
Therefore, it has been made clear that when the tenant 
makes a second default, no protection can be given to 
c the tenant from eviction. [Para 14) [495-E-G] 
1.2. From a reading of sub-section (3) of section 26 
of the Act, it is clear that the tenant has been given further 
protection to get the rent receipt from the landlord and 
in the event the landlord refuses to grant such receipt, 
D the procedure has been clearly made by the Legislature 
for the purpose of getting the receipt under the Act and 
at the same time the landlord can be imposed to pay 
damages not exceeding double the amount paid by the 
tenant and the costs of the application and to obtain a 
E certificate from the landlord in respect of the rent paid. 
Section 27 deals with deposit of rent by the tenant. It 
clearly says that where the landlord does not accept any 
rent tendered by the tenant within the time referred to in 
section 26 or refuses or neglects to deli\/er a receipt 
F referred to therein or where there is a bona fide doubt as 
the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the 
tenant may deposit such rent with the Controller in the 
prescribed manner. When the words " bona fide doubt" 
has been added to section 27, the tenant may remit such 
G rent to the Controller by postal money order. From a 
.j 
conjoint reading of the provision and particularly section 
~ 
27 of the Act, it cannot be doubted that the procedure 
having been made by the Legislature how the rent can 
be deposited if it was refused to have been received or 
H 
-
SARLA GOEL & ORS. v. KISHAN CHAND 
483 
•· 
to grant receipt for the same. If that be the position, if such 
A 
'·· 
protection has been given to the tenant, the said 
-
procedure has to be strictly followed in the matter of 
taking steps in the event of refusal of the landlord to 
receive the rent or to grant receipt to the tenant. Whether 
the word "may" shall be used as "shall", would depend 
B 
upon the intention of the Legislature. It is not to be taken 
that once the word "may" is used by the Legislature in 
"' 
section 27 of the Act, would not mean that the intention 
of the Legislature was only to show that the provisions 
under section 27 of the Act was directory but not c 
mandatory. [Paras 15] [496-C-H; 497-A-C] 
1.3. Taking

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