SMT. ANAND KAUR versus PRITAM LAL

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 43 · Decided: 14-01-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.D. KOSHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
_, 
"-· 
' 
'· 
SMT. ANAND KAUR 
v. 
PRITAM LAL 
January 14, 1.982 
[A.D. KO!HAL, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND 
R.B. MISRA, JI.] 
43 
A 
8 
Delhi R.nt Control Act-Section 14(1). proviso (a) read with provllO to 
C 
114ction 14(2)-rcope of. 
When a tenant has ~either paid DOI'. tendered the whole of the arrears of 
rent legally recoverabl~ from him within two months of the date on which the 
notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord 
proviso (a) to section 14(1) empowers the Controller to make an order for the 
recovery of possession of the premises. The proviso to section 14(2) states that 
no tenant shall be entitled to the benefit under the sub-section if having obtained 
such benefit once in respect of any premises he again makes a default in the 
payment of rent of those premises for thrie consecutive months. 
D 
On 14th December, 1973. the land-lady-appellant issued a notice to the 
tenant stating that be had not paid the damages after May 11973 and called upon 
him to pay the arrears within two months from the date of notice. The tenant 
E 
remitted the rent to the land-l~dy by money-.order towards the end of February 
1974 .but she refused to accept the same. 
_On the land·lady's application the Controller, and the Tribunal in appeal, 
held that the notice was valid and that the expression Hdamages for the use and 
occupation" meant nothing more nor less than rent. But the High Court on 
appeal held that the term "rent" tlnd "damages for use and occupation" could 
not be taken to be synonymous ter~s and that the notice issued by Ehe land-lady 
did not satisfy the requirements of clause (a) of the proviso to section 14(1) of 
the Act in that it did not demand rent from the tenant. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the case to the Court below 
F 
HELD : The notice issued by the land-lady satisfies the requirements of 
G 
clause (a) of the proviso to section 14(1). [46 DJ 
The High Court has taken an unnecessarily hypertechnical view of the 
con ten ts of the notice which speeificldly stated that on account of the termination 
of the tenancy by an earlier notice the tenant had become a statutory tenant and 
it was in this context that a claim was made for damages for use and occupation 
at a rate equivalent to the agreed rent. 
The demand so ma~• ~OQld qot b~ 
i;oostrued as anything but a demaq<! fQr rent, [ 46 B.C] 
H 
A 
B.· 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
44 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1982] 3 s.c.a. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 966 of 
1976. 
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
the 6th February, 1976 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No.148 
of 1975) 
Vlnoo Bhagat for the Appellant, 
G. D. Gupta for the Respondent (Not Present) 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
KosHAL, J. The short point arising for determination in this 
appeal concerns the validity of a notice served by the landlady-
appellant on the tenant-respondent and purporting to be one issued 
in accordance with the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-
section (I) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter 
called the Act), and we may at the very outset reproduce the. rele-
vant provisions of that section : 
"14(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary 
contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree 
for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be 
made by any court or Controller in favour of the. landlord 
against a tenant : 
Provided that the Controller may, on an application 
made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for 
the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more 
of the foUowing grounds only, namely: 
(a) that the tenant has neiiher paid nor tendered 
the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable 
from him within two months of the date on which a 
notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been 
served on him by the landlord in the manner provided 
in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; 
14(2) No order for the recovery of possession of any 
premises shall b~ made on the ~rouncj specified in clause 
\-
i 
.( 
Ai-IAND KAtlR v. Pkl'i'AM LAL (Koshal, J,) 
(a) of the proviso to sub-section (I), if the tenant makes 
payment or deposit as required by section 15 : 
Provided that no tenant shall be entitled to the benefit 
under this sub-section, if having obtained such benefit _once 
in respect of any premises, he again makes a default in the 
payment of rent of those premises for three

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