SMT. KAMLA DEVI versus SH. VASDEV

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 603 · Decided: 14-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. KAMLA DEVI 
A 
v. 
SH.VASDEV 
DECEMBER 14, 1994 
[J.S. VERMA, S.P. BHARUCHA AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.] 
B 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Sections 14(1) (a) and(2) and 15(1) and 
(7). 
Tenant-Failure to pay rent-Eviction petition-Rent Controller's 
order directing tenant to pay rent and arrears-Default committed by C 
tenant-Power of Rent Controller to strike out tenant's defence-Held 
provision for striking out defence contained in Section 15(7) is 
discretionary and not mandatory-Such a power should not be exercised 
mechanically without application of mind-Where the Rent Controller 
condoned the tenant's delay in depositing the arrears of rent on the ground D 
that failure was not intentional grant of benefit of section 14(2) to tenant 
held justified 
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961: Provisions con-
tained in Sections 12(1)(3), 13(1)(5)(6)- Corresponding provisions 
contained in Sections 14(1)(2), 15(1)(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, E 
1958-Held there is no material distinction between. 
In an eviction petition filed by the appellant-landlord under section 
14(1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the Rent Controller, by its 
order dated 27.1.1984, directed the respondent-tenant to deposit the 
entire arrears of rent within one month of its passing the order and F 
continue to pay subsequent rent month by month. On respondent's 
failure to pay the arrears within the stipulated period the appellant-
landlord filed an application under section 15 (7) for striking out the 
tenant's defence and the Additional Rent Controller passed an eviction 
order in favour of the appellant holding that since the respondent-
tenant had failed to comply with its order dated 27.1.1984 he was not G 
entitled to the benefit of section 14 (2) of the Act. On appeal the 
Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Rent Controller to consider 
the question as to whether the delay in deposit of arrears by the 
Respondent-tenant was liable to be condoned before deciding whether 
he was entitled to the benefit under section 14 (2). 
H 
603 
604 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
A 
On remand, the Additional Rent Controller condoned the delay in 
depositing the arrears of rent on the ground that non-compliance with 
order dated 27.1.1984 was not intentional and accordingly held that the 
tenant was entitled to benefit under section 14 (2) of the Act. The 
appellant-landlord appealed to the Tribunal which held that it being a 
case of first default by the tenant he was rightly given the benefit of 
B 
Section 14 (2) of the Act. Landlord's further appeal to High Court was 
also dismissed. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant-
landlord that (i) since the respondent neither took any step to deposit 
arrears of rent nor for extension of time within one month of the order 
of the Rent Controller under section 15 (1) of the Act, the Rent 
Controller did not have any discretionary power to condone the delay 
under section 15 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (ii) once there is a 
failure on the part of the tenant to carry out the directions given by the 
Rent Controller under section 15(1), he is not entitled to any further 
opportunity to pay in terms of the order passed under Section 15(1) 
and the landlord is entitled straightaway to an order for striking out 
the defence of the tenant and consequently an order for eviction of the 
tenant; and (iii) the judgment of this Court in Hem Chand v. Delhi Cloth 
and General Mills Co. Ltd, (1977) 3 SCC 483 is a clear authority for. the 
proposition that the Rent Controller has no power to condone the 
failure of the tenant to pay arrears of rent as required under section 15 
(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act; the judgment in the case of Ram 
Murti v. Bhola Nath and Anr., (1984) 3 SCC 111, which took a contrary 
view, was wrongly decided since in that case reliance was wrongly 
placed on the judgment of Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas, (1980) 2 
SCC 151 
in which the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh 
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 fell for consideration. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD :1. The scheme of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 appears 
to be that a tenant cannot be evicted except on any one of the grounds 
set out in clause (a) to (1) of Section 14(1) of the Act. If a tenant is a 
defaulter in payment of rent, even then an order for recovery of 
possession of the tenanted premises shall not be made straigh

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