LexSHANTI PRASAD JAIN (D) THROUGH LRS. versus PRAKASH NARAIN MATHUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 6 S.C.R. 96
A
SHANTI PRASAD JAIN (D) THROUGH LRS.
v.
PRAKASH NARAIN MATHUR
(Civil Appeal No. 2544 of 2008)
B
APRIL 15, 2009
[TARlJN CHATIERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - s. 15(7) - Arrears of rent
- Failure to pay - High Court striking out defence of tenant
c and also rejecting application for condonation of delay in
depositing rent - Interference with - Held: Not called for -
High Court rightly exercised the discretion in striking out the
defence uls. 15(7) and rejecting the application for
condonation of delay in deposit of rent, in favour of landlord
D - Tenants committed default in depositing rent in compliance
with the order of Rent Controller - Application for condonation ·
-~
of delay was a belated one and afterthought attempt to explain
willful default.
E
The question which arose for consideration in this
appeal was whether the High Court was justified in
allowing the application filed by the respondent-landlord
for stril<ing out the defence of the appellant-tenant under
Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and
F
rejecting the application for condonation of delay in
depositing rent under section 151 CPC filed by the tenant.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. On examining the submissions made by
G the counsel for the parties and the impugned judgment
as well as the orders passed by the Additional Rent
Control Tribunal and the Rent Controller, and also the
averments made in the application for condonation of
delay and the averments made by the landlord/
H
96
SHANTI PRASAD JAIN (D) THROUGH LRS. v.
97
PRAKASH NARAIN MATHUR
~-
respondent in the application under section 15(7) of the
A
-
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, no interference is called for
in respect of the impugned judgment of the High Court.
[Para 11] [107-C-E]
1.2. The appellants were guilty of negligent default in
depositing the rent in compliance with the order of the
B
Rent Controller, under section 15(1) of the Act. The
application for condonation of delay was a belated one
and afterthought attempt was made to explain the willful
default. That apart, In the application for condonation of c
delay, the appellants, for the first time, contended that
they were advised by their counsel that they were not
obliged to comply with the order under section 15(1) of
the Act, till the appellants were brought on record.
Whereas contradictory stand was taken by them that rent D
was submitted regularly to their counsel through their
clerk to assure that it was duly deposited. That apart,
neither any affidavit from the counsel or from his clerk
was filed regarding deposit of rent with them nor any
details of deposit of money given to the counsel through
his clerk was given. Therefore, the explanation, apart from
E
being an afterthought, was clearly bogus and unworthy
of any credence. The order passed under section 15(1)
of the Act was passed by the Rent Controller, in 1989
-~
directing the original tenant to pay or deposit rent at the
~
...
rate of Rs.105/- per month w.e.f. year 1985 and to continue
F
to pay or deposit the rent at the said rate by 15th of each
succeeding month. It also appears from the record that
in the year 1995, one of the sons of the deceased tenant-
appellant No.2, had filed an application for impleadment
in the eviction petition on the ground that he was a G
member of HUF of the original tenant and he was in fact
running a business as a member of the HUF and was not
a sub-tenant in respect of the premises in question. The
said son SK was impleaded by order in 1995 against
which, a revision petition was filed by the landlord/ H
98
SlJPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A reopondont boforo tho High Court which only otoyod nil
~
further proeoodlng& In thtJ ovlctlon procoodlng. SP tho
-
orlglnal t.enant died In 1997 and nfter hlo doath, tho ront
was admittedly not paid In compliance with the order
under Section 15{1) of the Act. While rejecting the
B explanation offered by the appellants in the application
for condonation of delay which was duly considered by
the High Court and the High Court came to a positive
finding. (Para 12] [107-E-H; 108-A-H; 109-A-D]
c
1.3. The High Court was fully justified and within its
jurisdiction to reject the application filed by the appellants
for condonation of delay in the matter of deposit of rent
in compliance with the order passed under section 15(1)
of the ActExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.