LexSUBHASH MEHTA versus DR. S.P. CHOUDHARY (DEAD) BY LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SUBHASH MEHTA ~ v. DR. S.P. CHOUDHARY (DEAD) BY LRS. FEBRUARY 20, 1990 B [RANGANATH MISRA, MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND '-.)--. S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: S. 15(1)-Rigour of-Eviction sustained on facts of the case. c In the proceedings for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for arrears of rent, subletting, conversion of user from residential to commercial and bona fide need, the appellant-tenant committed f.- breach of the Controller's directions under s. 15(1) of the Act in the matter of payment of monthly rent. Consequently, his defence was struck off and the suit decreed on the sole ground of delayed payment of D future rent. All the other grounds were rejected. The tenant assailed the order before the Rent Control Tribunal ~- relying on Hem Chand v, Delhi Cloth Mills, [1977] 2 SCR 440 on the rigour of s. 15(1) of the Act. The Tribunal found that there was no infirmity in the order. The High Court maintained the ejectment. E In the appeal by special leave, it was contended for the appellant - on the strength of the decision in Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath, [1984] 3 ~ SCC 111 that s. 15(7) of the Act confers a discretion on the Rent Con- !roller not to strike off the defence of the tenant and consequently the delay ~ by him in making deposit of future rent should have been excused, and F that ·since no cross appeals were filed by the landlord against the rejec- tion of other grounds in the court of the Rent Control Tribunal or in the High Court nor those grounds were pressed in these two forums by the landlord, those grounds were no more available to him. The landlord died during the pendency of the appeal and his widow and divorced daughter-respondent succeeded to him :;s landlords. It was contended G for them that the tenant was a rich and well connected industrialist deserving no protection of the rent laws. ~ Dismissing the appeal, the Court, HELD: l. If the appeals were to be allowed by releasing and relax- H ing the rigour of the order of evktion, the matter then would have to be 506 SUBHASH MEHTA v. S.P. CHOUDHARY [PUNCHHI, J.] 507 remitted back at an appropriate stage where the successor landlords could conveniently have the other grounds of eviction adjudicated upon, by overruling the objection that the landlord could have filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal and the High Court seeking eviction of the tenant on grounds other than the ground on which the eviction was ordered. [SllB-C] · 2. The successor landlords are two ladies, one a widow and the other a divorcee, brought in the fray by operation of law. Remitting the case back would not only be unfair and unreasonable but time consum- ing and inequitous as well to them. Since almost eighteen years have passed by there should be an end to the dispute. This course is in the interest of all concerned as well as the State. Instead of putting the parties to a fresh bout of litigation the order of eviction should, there- fore, be sustained. [SllC-E] 3. The appellant is granted time ending ou March 31, 1991 for vacating the premises subject to his giving an undertaking for vacation A c on or before the said date and payment of rent to the landlords. [SllE-F] b CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 355 of --( 1981. From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.1980 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.0. No. 241of1979. E G.L. Sanghi and S.L. Aneja for the Appeliant. K. Parasaran, Gopal Subramanium, Arvind Verma and Mukul •. MudgalfortheRespondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUNCHHI, J. For the view we take in this appeal by special leave and leaning as we would be on our discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution, no elaborate details are necessary of the facts involved therein and for its disposal by a brief order. tJ The appellant, Subhash Mehta, more than two decades ago obtained a residential lease of the first floor in premises bearing No. D"32, South Extension, Part II, New Delhi from Dr. S.P. Choudhary (now dead) the landlord who was himself residing on the ground floor thereof. The settled rent was Rs.800 per mensem. The landlord on H 508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R. A November 27, 1972 served a notice on the tenant demanding arrears of rent from September 1, 1972 onwards. The demand having not been met lie instituted an eviction petition before the Rent Controller, Delhi on March 13, 1973 o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.