Page 1

                           NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6461 OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.36427 of 2014

PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA … APPELLANT  

VERSUS

B.R. GUPTA …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.

1 Leave granted.

2 This  appeal  emanates  from  the  proceedings  of  an  eviction

petition  filed  by  the  respondent-landlord  on  12.4.2004  under

Sections 14(1)(a),(b), (d) and (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

(for  short  ‘the  Act’)  against  the  appellant-tenant  before  the

Additional  Rent  Controller,  Tis  Hazari  Courts,  Delhi,  seeking

eviction of the appellant-tenant from the premises bearing property

No.47,  1st Floor,  Bunglow  Road,  Kamla  Nagar,  Delhi.   It  is  an

1

Page 2

admitted position that the premises in question was let out by the

landlord to the tenant for residential  purposes and the last paid

rent was @ Rs.500/- p.m. exclusive of other charges.  The eviction

petition  was  confined  ultimately  to  the  solitary  ground  under

Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.  The landlord issued a demand notice

under  Section  14(1)(a)  of  the  Act  to  the  appellant-tenant  on

19.1.2004 demanding rent @ Rs.500/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.4.2001 along

with interest thereon.  Since the tenant failed to pay the rent, the

petition for eviction of the tenant was filed as aforesaid.

3 The tenant filed the written statement denying the allegations

made  in  the  eviction  petition  besides  providing  his  defence  on

merits.    However,  with regard to the ground of  non-payment of

rent,  it  was,  inter  alia,  contended  that  he  is  not  guilty  of

non-payment and he had paid the rent from time to time to the

landlord who did not issue any receipt against the same.  It was

further contended that pursuant to the receipt of  demand notice

dated 19.1.2004, he had sent a reply dated 22.3.2004 whereby he

tendered a sum of Rs.18,000/- to the landlord by way of a bank

draft  towards  rent  @  Rs.500/-  p.m.  for  the  period  1.4.2001  till

30.9.2004.  To the aforesaid written statement of the tenant, the

2

Page 3

landlord filed his replication categorically  denying the allegations

made in the written statement and reaffirmed the contents of his

eviction petition.   

4 After completion of the pleadings, the matter was taken up by

the Rent Controller for consideration under Section 15(1) of the Act.

Keeping  in  view  the  respective  stand  of  the  parties,  the  Rent

Controller passed an order dated 7.2.2005 directing the tenant to

pay or deposit a sum of Rs.500/- p.m. as rent w.e.f. 1.10.2004 and

continue to pay the same at the aforesaid rate month by month.  

5 Thereafter, parties led their evidence. After the conclusion of

the evidence, the Rent Controller allowed the petition by order dated

27.4.2010 under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.  The Rent Controller

held that the tenant has failed to prove that he had tendered the

rent  to  the  landlord  pursuant  to  the  demand  notice    dated

19.1.2004 and thus the  tenant  is  guilty  of  non-payment  of  rent

within the ambit of Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.  While passing the

said judgment the Rent Controller directed the Nazir to submit a

report for the purpose of consideration of entitlement of the tenant

to the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act.  The matter was taken

up by  the  Rent  Controller  on  6.7.2010 on which date  the  Rent

3

Page 4

Controller  perused the Nazir’s  report  who stated that  the tenant

even failed to deposit the rent regularly in compliance of the said

order under Section 15(1) of the Act.  Therefore, the Rent Controller

by an order dated 6.7.2010 held that the tenant is not entitled to

the benefit  of  Section 14(2)  of  the Act and passed eviction order

under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.  The tenant challenged the said

order  by  filing  an  appeal  before  the  Additional  Rent  Control

Tribunal, North Delhi (for short ‘Tribunal’).  The appeal was allowed

by the Tribunal on 12.1.2011 whereby the matter was remanded to

the Rent Controller.

6 Pursuant to the order dated 12.1.2011 passed by the Tribunal,

the Rent Controller allowed the tenant to record examination of two

witnesses.  He was also permitted to mark certain documents.  The

Rent Controller  after  hearing the parties,  allowed the petition by

order dated 5.7.2011 under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act by holding

that  the tenant failed to pay the rent  despite service of  demand

notice and committed default within the meaning of Section 14(1)(a)

of the Act.  The Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit the

arrears of rent from 1.4.2001 @ Rs.500/- p.m. along with interest @

15%  p.a.  Accordingly,  the  earlier  order  dated  7.2.2005  passed

4

Page 5

under Section 15(1) of the Act  was modified.  Nazir of the court was

directed to submit report for consideration of the entitlement of the

tenant to the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act.  

7 Nazir submitted a report whereby it was found that the tenant

had  been  guilty  of  non-compliance  of  the  order  dated  7.2.2005

passed under Section 15(1) of the Act.  The tenant took the stand

that since he had complied with the final judgment dated 5.7.2011,

the tenant is entitled to the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act.

After  hearing  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties,  the  Rent

Controller by an order dated 24.8.2011 held that the tenant has

failed to provide any explanation regarding delay in depositing of

rent month by month in terms of the order dated 7.2.2005.  Thus

he  is  not  entitled  to  the  benefit  under  Section 14(2)  of  the  Act.

Therefore,  the  eviction  order  was  passed  by  the  Rent  Controller

against the tenant under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.

8 The appeal filed by the tenant challenging the said order of the

Rent Controller before the Rent Control  Tribunal was allowed on

24.2.2012.  The landlord challenged the said order before the High

Court of Delhi in C.M. Main No.415 of 2012.  The High Court by

order dated 01.12.2014 has allowed the appeal and set aside the

5

Page 6

order of  the Tribunal and restored the order passed by the Rent

Controller.   The  tenant  has  called  in  question  the  legality  and

correctness of the said order in this appeal.

9 Learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant-tenant

argues that the order dated 7.2.2005 passed under Section 15(1) of

the Act  was modified by a later  order dated 5.7.2011 wherein a

direction was issued to the tenant to deposit  the arrears of  rent

along with interest @15% p.a. within one month from the date of

the said order.  This order has been complied with by the tenant.

Thus  order  dated  7.2.2005  has  merged  with  the  order  dated

5.7.2011.  Secondly, it is argued that the High Court has placed

reliance in  Hem Chand etc. etc.  v. The Delhi Cloth & General

Mills  Co.  Ltd.  and  Anr.  Etc.  etc.1.  This  judgment  has  been

impliedly  overruled  in  Shyamcharan  Sharma  v. Dharamdas2

whereby this Court has held that the Rent Controller is vested with

the discretionary power to condone the default and extend the time

for deposit of the rent.  This position has been recognized by this

1

(1977) 3 SCC 483 2

(1980) 2 SCC 151

6

Page 7

Court in Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath and Anr.3 whereby it was held

that the Rent Controller has power to condone the default on the

part of the tenant in making payment or deposit of the future rents.

In the light of the judgment in Ram Murti (Supra), the High Court

ought to have condoned the delay in payment of the rents.

10 On  the  other  hand,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the

respondent-landlord submits that the tenant is a contumacious and

a willful defaulter of the rents.  He had the opportunity to pay the

arrears of rent in response to the notice issued under Section 14(1)

(a) of the Act.  Instead of paying the rents he raised a defence that

he had paid the rent to the landlord who did not issue any receipt

against  the  same.   It  was  further  contended  that  he  had  paid

Rs.18,000/- towards the rent by way of bank draft from 1.4.2001 to

31.1.2004.  That is why the Rent Controller, while considering the

case  under  Section 15(1),  directed the  tenant  to  pay  the  rent  @

Rs.500/- p.m. from 1.10.2004 and continue to pay the same at the

same rate month by month.  The question relating to payment from

1.4.2001 to 30.9.2004 was kept open.  The tenant has failed to pay

3

(1984) 3 SCC 111

7

Page 8

the rent in terms of this order.  When the matter was taken up for

consideration under Section (14)(1)(a) the court directed the tenant

to pay the rent for the aforesaid period.  There is no merger of the

order dated 7.2.2005 in the order dated 5.7.2011.

11 Similarly, it is contended that the tenant has failed to comply

with the order under Section 15(1) of the Act.  He has deposited the

rent from 1.1.2004 to 31.1.2006 after the expiry of 9 months 12

days and for the period 1.4.2006 to 31.2.2007.  The deposit of rent

was made after the expiry of 3 months and 6 days.  Similarly, the

payment of rent for the subsequent period is also made sometimes

after one year and sometimes after 3 months.  The tenant has not

offered  any  explanation  for  the  delay  in  payment  of  rents.

Therefore, the order impugned does not call for interference.

12 Before considering the rival  contentions of  the parties,  it  is

desirable  to  set  out  relevant  provisions of  the  Act.  Section 14(1)

provides that no tenant can be evicted except an application made

to the Controller for an order for the recovery of possession on one

or more grounds specified in the section.  Section 14(1)(a) provides

for eviction of a tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent,

if the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of arrears of

8

Page 9

rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on

which the notice of demand for 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.  It is clear that if the tenant pays the

arrears of rent within two months of service of notice, the landlord

cannot get order for recovery of possession on the ground of default

in payment of rent but if the tenant fails to pay the rent as required

under  Section 14(1)(a),  the  proceedings  are  taken  under  Section

15(1) of  the Act.   Under this provision the Controller shall,  after

giving  the  parties  opportunity  of  being  heard,  make  an  order

directing  the  tenant  to  pay  the  landlord  or  deposit  with  the

Controller within one month of the date of the order, an amount

calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid for the period

for  which  the  arrears  of  rent  were  legally  recoverable  from  the

tenant including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the

month previous to that in which payment or deposit is made and to

continue  to  pay  or  deposit  month  by  month  by  15th of  each

succeeding month a sum equal to the rent at that rate.

13 Sub-section (6)  of  Section 15 states that  if  a  tenant makes

payment or deposit as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section

9

Page 10

(3), no order shall be made for recovery of possession on the ground

of default in the payment of rent by the tenant, but the Controller

may allow such costs as he deem fit to the landlord.  Sub-section

(7) of Section 15 states that if a tenant fails to make payment or

deposit as required by this section, the Controller may order the

defence  against  eviction  to  be  struck  out  and  proceed  with  the

hearing  of  the  application.   The  other  important  provision  is

sub-section (2) of Section 14 which states that no order for recovery

of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified

in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1), if the tenant makes

payment or deposit as required by Section 15.  Thus, payment of

rent as directed by the Controller under sub-section (1) of Section

15 is a must in order to avoid eviction under Section 14(1)(a).

14 The  first  contention  of  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

tenant  is  that  the order  dated 07.02.2005 passed under  Section

15(1) of the Act has been modified by the Rent Controller by his

order  dated 05.07.2011.   Therefore,  the Rent Controller  was not

justified in passing an order of eviction for non-payment of rent in

terms of the order dated 7th February, 2005.  There is no merit in

this contention.  As noticed above,  the appellant claimed rent @

10

Page 11

Rupees  five  hundred per  month from 1st April,  2001 along with

interest thereon by issuing a demand notice under Section 14(1)(a).

Since tenant failed to comply with the demand made in the notice,

the landlord filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the

Act.  The tenant filed a counter stating that he had paid the rent

from time to time and that the landlord did not issue any receipt

against  the  same.   It  was  also  contended  that  pursuant  to  the

demand notice dated 19th January, 2004, he had sent the reply

along with a demand draft for a sum of Rupees 18,000/- towards

the  rent  @  Rupees  five  hundred  per  month  from  1.4.2001  to

31.3.2004.   The  Rent  Controller  passed  order  dated  07.02.2005

under Section 15(1) of the Act, directing the tenant to pay or deposit

a sum of Rupees five hundred per month with effect from 1.10.2004

within one month from the date of the order and further continue to

pay or deposit future rent at the aforesaid rate month by month by

15th day of  each succeeding month during trial.   This order was

passed because there was dispute in relation to payment of  rent

from 1.4.2001 till 30.9.2004.  The question relating payment of rent

for this period was kept open.  After trial, the Rent Controller came

to  the  conclusion  that  the  tenant  has  failed  to  establish  the

11

Page 12

payment of arrears of rents from 1.4.2001.  The tenant has also

failed to pay the rents from 1.10.2004 in terms of the order dated

07.02.2005.  In the circumstances, it is futile to contend that that

the  order  dated  07.02.2005  has  merged  with  the  order  dated

05.07.2011.    

15 The second contention of the appellant is that the court below

has not considered condonation of delay in payment of rent having

regard to the decision in Ram Murti (supra).   It is his submission

that the decision relied on by the High Court in Hem Chand (supra)

has been impliedly overruled in Shyamcharan Sharma (supra).  In

Hem Chand (supra) this Court has held that the Rent Controller

has  no discretion to  extend the  time for  payment  of  rent  under

Section 15(1) of the Act.  However, in Ram Murti (supra) this Court

after  taking  into  consideration  the  decision  in Shyamcharan

Sharma (supra) has held that Rent Controller has power to condone

the default on the part of the tenant in making payment or deposit

of the future rents.  This decision has application in a case where

the tenant seeks condonation of delay in payment of rents.  It is

relevant to notice here that the tenant is a willful defaulter of rents.

He took a stand before the Rent Controller that he had paid the

12

Page 13

entire arrears of rent.  The Rent Controller passed an order dated

07.02.2005 under Section 15(1) of the Act directing him to pay or

deposit the rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month with effect from

1.10.2004  and  continue  to  pay  the  same  at  the  aforesaid  rate

month by month.  Admittedly, he has failed to pay the rent in terms

of the said order.  After conclusion of the trial, the Rent Controller

allowed the petition by order dated 27.4.2010 under Section 14(1)(a)

of the Act.  The Rent Controller held that the tenant failed to prove

that  he  had  tendered  the  rent  to  the  landlord  pursuant  to  the

demand notice dated 19.1.2004. The Rent Controller directed the

Nazir  to  submit  a  report  for  the  purpose  of  consideration  of

entitlement of the tenant to the benefit under Section 14(2) of the

Act.  The Nazir’s report showed that the tenant had not paid the

rent regularly in compliance with the order passed under Section

15(1)  of  the  Act.   There  was  a  long  delay  in  deposit  of  rents.

Condonation  of  delay  can  take  place  only  when  the  defaulting

tenants so pleads with justifiable reasons which would show that

he was prevented from compliance by circumstances beyond his

control.  The tenant has not offered any explanation for the delay in

13

Page 14

deposit  of  rents.   Therefore,  we  do  not  find  any  justification  to

interfere with the order of the High Court.    

16 In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

However, the appellant is granted three months time from today to

vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises in question to

the respondent subject to filing of an undertaking before this Court

to vacate the premises on or before three months from today.  The

undertaking shall be filed within two weeks from today.   

…………………………………………J. (J. CHELAMESWAR)  

…………………………………………J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER)

New Delhi May 9, 2017

14