SMT. PRAKASH MEHRA versus K.L. MALHOTRA

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 744 · Decided: 27-04-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SMT. PRAKASH MEHRA 
v. 
K.L. MALHOTRA 
APRIL 27, 1989 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND S. NATARAJAN, J.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: s. 14(1)(a)-Eviction-Noticet/ 
demand for arrears of rent-Satisfaction of-Held, arrears of rent due 
cannot be extended to rent falling due after service of notice. 
" 
• 
c 
The respondent-tenant fell into arrears of rent for two months 
consecutively. The rent was payable in advance. He was served with a 
notice of demand, within seven days of which he sent a bank draft-l -
purporting to be the rent for the first month, and within a month 
another bank draft for the like amount. The landlady neither encashed 
D 
nor returned them. After the notice period she filed an application for 
his ejectment. 
The ,Rent Controller held that the tenant was not in default. The 
Tribunal, however, found that when the notice of demand was served 
the arrears of rent for the two months had arisen, that the bank draft k-
sent thereafter related to the rent for the first month only, that as the 
E 
rent for the second month had also become due but had not been 
tendered, the landlady was justified in not accepting the tender, and 
that when the respondent again sent a draft for the second month the 
rent for the third month had also fallen due but was not tendered. It 
thus took the view that the respondent had not tendered the arrears of 
rent due up-to-date within two months of the notice of demand, and 
'F 
held that the ground of non-payment of rent stood established. 
Allowing the appeal, the High Court took the view thats. 14(1)(. 
of the Delhi Rent Controll Act, 1958 made out a ground for evictio 
only where the tenant had neither paid nor tendered the whole of th 
arrears of rent legally recoverable from him wi_thirt two months of the 
G 
date on which a notice of demand was served "iHI hlm by the landlord,· 
the arrears beinii the rent due on the date of the notice. As in the· 
instant case, the notice called for payment of the arrears due for the two· 
months and the bank drafts were tendered within the period indicated · 
in the notice, the notice was satisfied. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court, 
744 
SMT. PRAKASH MEHRA v. K.L. MALHOTRA 
745 
HELD: The arrears of rent envisaged hy s. 14(l)(a) of the Delhi 
Rent Control Act are the arrears demanded by the notice for payment. 
The arrears of rent due cannot be extended to rent which has fallen due 
after service of the notice .. [747DE] 
In the instant case, the two bank drafts representing the arrears. 
of rent covered by the notice of demand had been tendered within two 
months of the date of service of the notice. The High Court was, there-
fore, right in the view taken by it. [747DE] 
Jag Ram Nathu Ram v. Shri Surinder Kumar, S.A.O. No. 52 of 
1975 and S.L. Kapur v. Dr. Mrs. P.D. Lal, All India Rent Control 
Journal, [1975] ;322, overruled. 
CIV:IL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3119 
of 1984. 
· 
· 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.9.1982 of the Delhi High . 
A 
B 
c 
Court in S.A.O. No. 181of1979. 
D 
Dr. Y.S. Chitale and Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant. 
R.K. Garg, Gopal Singh, L.R. Singh and Mrs. Vimal Sinha for 
the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: 
PATHAK, CJ; This is a landlady's appeal by special leave 
arising out of proceedings for the ejectment of the responttent-tenant. 
E 
The appellant let out the premises in suit to the r~spondent on 1 F 
September, 1962, the rent being stipulated as payable in advance. 
With effect from 1 January, 1972 the rent payable was Rs. 515 per 
month. On 29 November, 197'2, the contractual tenancy was deter-
mined by notice. The respondent received a notice on 7 May,, 1976 
calling upon him to pay the arrears of.rent. The rent in fact had been 
received upto 31 March, 1976 and, therefore, when the notice of G 
demand was served on the appellant, rent for the months of April and 
May 1976 had fallen due. The rent was payable in advance. 
On 13 May, 1976, the respondent offered a bank draft of Rs.515 
to the apellant. The appellant refused to accept it. Two days later, the 
respondent sent the same bank draft by registe.red post. The appellant 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
746 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 2 S.C.R. 
received the bank draft and retained it. On 7 June, 1976, the appellant 
wrote to the respondent informing him that his tender was not v.alid. 
On 11 June, 1976, the appellant sent another bank draft for Rs.515 to 
the landlady, and this dra

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