1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3687­3688 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C)NOS.6972­73 OF 2018)

NONIHAL SINGH                       … APPELLANT

VERSUS

MAYA DEVI         … RESPONDENT

O R D E R

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed by the tenant

challenging the orders dated 15.01.2018 and 27.02.2018 by

which High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur has rejected the

miscellaneous application for extension of time and

miscellaneous application to condone delay in depositing

arrears of rent and mesne profits.   Miscellaneous

applications were filed in Writ Petition No.19029 of 2017

which was earlier disposed of by the High Court on

01.11.2017.

2

3. Brief facts to be noted for deciding these appeals

are:

The respondent­landlady filed an application under

Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 on

05.12.2006 before the Rent Tribunal, Alwar on the ground

of default in payment of rent. The Tribunal vide its

judgment dated 05.04.2014 allowed the application of

landlady directing the appellant to handover the vacant

possession within six months. The landlady was also

entitled to receive rent from the date of filing the suit

till the date of decision in the form of mesne profit.

3. The appeal was filed to the Rent Appellate Tribunal,

District Alwar which too was dismissed on 03.05.2017. The

appellant aggrieved by the orders passed by the Rent

Tribunal and Rent Appellate Tribunal filed  Writ Petition

No.19029 of 2017 in the High Court which was disposed of

by the High Court with certain directions. As per order

dated 01.11.2017 passed by the High Court the appellant

was to deposit arrears of rent before 31.12.2017 and

further mesne profit at the rate of Rs.3,000/­ per month

w.e.f. 01.11.2017. The appellant could not deposit the

arrears of rent within time allowed by the High Court.

3

5. An application was filed by the appellant for

extension of time to deposit the rent which was dismissed

on 15.01.2018 by the following order:

"The matter comes up on an application for extension of time to deposit arrears of rent under the order dated 01.11.2017 passed by this Court.

I am of the considered view that no ground for extension of time is made out.

It is accordingly dismissed.”

6. It is relevant to note that before 15.01.2018, the

landlady has filed application for execution of decree of

arrears of rent in which application  the landlady has

claimed arrears of rent from 04.09.2003 to 19.03.2017

totaling to Rs.96,997/­. In the execution of decree the

amount was deposited by the appellant on 12.01.2018 in

Court in the execution proceedings. The aforesaid amount

was also handed over to the decree­holder on 15.01.2018

and execution was filed recording full satisfaction.

7. The appellant further made a deposit of Rs.33,000/­

on 15.02.2018 in the bank account of landlady claiming to

be mesne profit. Another miscellaneous application was

filed by  the appellant on 15.02.2018  in Writ  Petition

4

No.19029 of 2017 praying for condoning the delay in

depositing the amount which application was also rejected

by the High Court on 27.02.2018 by the following order:

“Heard the counsel for the applicant and the non­applicant on the application for condonation of delay in depositing the arrears of rent/mesne profits in pursuance to the order dated 01.11.2017 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.19029/2017 titled Nonihal Singh vs. Smt. Maya Devi.

Having heard the counsel for the applicant and the non­applicant, I am of the considered view that in the facts obtaining no ground obtains for expanding the time for depositing the arrears of rent/mesne profits as prayed for.

The application stands dismissed.”

8. Aggrieved against the aforesaid two orders, these

appeals have  been filed by  the appellant. The appeals

were taken on 27.03.2018 which were directed to be listed

on 28.03.2018. In the meantime, respondent claims to have

obtained possession of premises in question on 27.03.2018

itself. When the case was taken up by this Court on

28.03.2018, this Court noticing the submission of the

respondent that the possession of the premises has been

taken on 27.03.2018, directed for maintaining status quo.

5

9. When the matter was heard on 05.04.2018, learned

counsel for the respondent filed an affidavit annexing

judgments of courts below. In the affidavit, it is stated

that the appellant has not deposited the amount as per

order dated 01.11.2017 of the High Court. The respondent

refuted the claim of the appellant that he has deposited

the entire arrears of rent/mesne profits. It was further

pleaded that as per order dated 05.04.2014, the appellant

was directed to make payment of rent calculated at three

times of the existing rate which has not been complied

with.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

11. These two appeals have been filed questioning the two

orders passed by the High Court dated 15.01.2018 and

27.02.2018 by which orders prayer of the appellant for

extension of time to deposit arrears of rent and

condoning the delay in depositing arrears of rent has

been rejected. Whether the High court committed any error

in rejecting the aforesaid applications is the main

question to be considered in the present appeals.

12. The writ petition challenging the order of Rent

6

Tribunal and  the Rent Appellate Tribunal  filed  by the

appellant has been  disposed of  on 01.11.2017 with the

following directions:

"(i) The petitioner­tenant shall be entitled to continue in occupation of the tenanted premises in question upto April 30, 2019, but not beyond subject to condition that he would hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question to respondent­landlord on or before April 30, 2019.

(ii) The petitioner­tenant shall pay arrears of rent or mesne profits, if any, till October 31, 2017, as determined by the courts within a period of two months from today.

(iii) The petitioner­tenant commencing 1st

November, 2017 shall pay to respondent­ landlords, mesne profits @ Rs.3000/­ per month on or before 10th of each month.

(iv) The petitioner­tenant shall not alienate or otherwise create third party right, or hand over possession of the tenanted premises in question to any other person.

Further, the petitioner­tenant shall submit an undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions before the Rent Tribunal Alwar, within a period of thirty days, from the date of this order. In case the petitioner­tenant fails to submit the undertaking as aforesaid within thirty days from today, and/or breaches the conditions of this order, the respondents­landlords shall be entitled to the immediate execution of

7

the judgment and possession certificate dated 03.05.2017 and obtain possession of the premises in issue forthwith in accordance with law. The breach of this order shall also be liable to be punished as contempt of the court.”

13. The landlady has filed execution application on

25.03.2017 before the Rent Tribunal claiming rent of

Rs.96,997/­ for the period from 04.09.2003 to 19.03.2017.

In execution proceedings, aforesaid amount of Rs.96,997/­

has been deposited by the appellant on 12.01.2018 receipt

of which payment has been filed as annexure P­4. It is

also  relevant to note that in the execution proceedings

dated 15.01.2018 court passed the following order:

"Decree holder Maya Devi with Advocate Manish Jain present. The file has been pursued. Mentioned amount Rs.96997/­in recovery warrant in compliance of O­21 R 30 CPC were handed over to decree holder­ Mrs. Maya Devi. The Advocate of decree holder expressed full satisfaction in the execution application. In view of full satisfaction into matter of execution, application is filed with a direction to consign the record.”

14. On the same date when the execution was filed

recording satisfaction, the High Court rejected the

application of the appellant for extension of time. The

8

order of the High Court does not reflect that as to

whether parties brought into the notice of the Court that

in pursuance of the execution application amount of

Rs.96,997/­ has been deposited on 12.01.2018. The High

Court exercises the jurisdiction under Article 226 and

227 for the purpose of securing the ends of justice. It

is true that amount of arrears of rent as per order dated

01.11.2017 was to be deposited till 31.12.2017 and since

the amount could not be deposited, application for

extension of time was filed. We have no doubt that had it

been brought in the notice of the High Court that amount

of Rs.96,997/­ has been deposited on 12.01.2018, the High

Court would have considered the fact that a substantial

amount in pursuance of order of the High Court in

execution proceedings has been deposited on 12.1.2018

that is before passing order of the High Court on the

application for extension of time which fact was a

relevant fact and the order dated 15.01.2018 has  been

passed in ignorance of the said fact. We are satisfied

that order dated 15.01.2018 does not advance substantial

justice. Further, after depositing Rs.96,997/­, a further

amount of Rs.33,000/­ was deposited on 15.02.2018

9

directly in the bank account of landlady receipt of which

has been filed as Annexure P­6 which according to the

appellant is rent for 11 months at the rate of Rs.3,000/­

subsequent to the period which was included in the

execution application. After depositing amount of

Rs.33,000/­ another miscellaneous application being No.80

of 2018 was filed praying for condonation of delay in

depositing the amount. On 27.02.2018 when application was

taken both the amounts, i.e., Rs.96,997/­ and Rs.33,000/­

covering mesne profits upto February, 2018 were

deposited.   Copy of the Misc. Application No.80 of 2018

has been brought on record as Annexure P­3. In paragraph

5 of the application there is an averment regarding

deposit of amount of  Rs.96,997/­ which was  claimed to

have been withdrawn by the respondent on 15.01.2018. Copy

of the order sheet of the trial court was also annexed.

Further, the amount from 20.03.2017 to 31.10.2017 and

thereafter  till February, 2018 was  also claimed to be

deposited which averment has been made in paragraph 6 of

the application. It was also mentioned that the earlier

application was dismissed on 15.01.2018. A perusal of the

High Court's order dated 27.02.2018 does not indicate

10

that the Court has referred to the above mentioned

averments in the application.

15. In the subsequent application, prayer was made for

condoning the delay in depositing the amount. The deposit

had already been made by the appellant which was also

accepted by the respondent which is clear from the order

of the Trial Court dated 15.01.2018 as noted above.   

The circumstance that in execution proceedings the amount

has been deposited and accepted by the landlady was a

relevant fact for condonation of delay in depositing the

amount. The power and jurisdiction of the High Court

vested under Sections 226 and 227 is for the purpose of

securing ends of justice. In the facts of the present

case, the High Court vide its order dated 01.11.2017 has

already permitted the appellant to continue in occupation

of the tenanted premises in question upto 30.04.2019.

16. It is true that there was delay in depositing the

arrears of rent by the tenant as per order dated

01.11.2017 but subsequently in execution proceedings

deposits were made and further deposits were made in the

bank   account   covering   the   period   upto February,

2018, which   facts   were   not   adverted   to   by   the

11

High Court while rejecting the application for

condonation of delay in deposit.

17. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the

deposit made by the appellant is not in accordance with

the order dated 05.04.2014. It is submitted that in the

order dated 05.04.2014 after six months from the order,

the deposit was to be made at rate of three time of the

rent. Order dated 05.04.2014  which  is referred  by the

learned counsel for the respondent is to the following

effect:

" ­: Order :­

Eventually petitioner's this petition suit under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 accepting against respondent with cost is decreed this way that respondent/tenant shall handover the disputed rented premises whose complete detail is described in para 3 of main petition suit by evacuating premise's empty hold within 6 months from the date of decision to the petitioner/landlord.  

In the determined duration in the situation of giving the possession of the premises to the petitioner by respondent petitioner shall receive normal due rent till the receiving of the possession. If the tenant does not evacuate the premises within 6 months from the date of issue of certificate of re­possession then he shall be responsible to pay 3 times rent

12

to the petitioner from the determined rate of due rent in the form of mesne profits from the date of issue of certificate of re­possession.

Petitioner shall have right to receive rent from the date of filing suit till date of decision according to rule in form of mesne profit.”

The perusal of the said order indicates that the

direction was that if the tenant does not evacuate the

premises within 6 months from the date of issue of

certificate of re­possession, he shall be responsible to

pay 3 times rent to the landlady.

18. There are two reasons due to which the above

submission of the respondent cannot be accepted. Firstly,

the order dated 05.04.2014 itself mentions that the

liability to pay 3 times rent shall accrue after six

months from the date of issue of certificate of re­

possession. There is no material to indicate as to when

certificate of re­possession was issued. Secondly, the

order made by the Rent Tribunal as well as Rent Appellate

Tribunal stand superseded by the order of the High Court

dated 01.11.2017  which  was passed with the  consent of

both the parties. The High Court in its order dated

13

01.11.2017 recorded terms and conditions for permitting

the appellant to continue in occupation of the premises

in question till 30.04.2019. The terms and conditions

recorded in the order by the High Court are clearly in

variance with the decree of the Rent Tribunal and the

Rent Appellate Tribunal. What was required to be adhered

to are the directions of the High Court dated 01.11.2017

and not the order of the Tribunal as claimed by the

learned counsel for the respondent.

19. We are, thus, of the opinion that the relevant

materials have been brought on record to prove that the

appellant deposited the arrears of rent/mesne profits as

per order of the High Court dated 01.11.2017 though

belatedly. The appellant has also brought on record the

receipt of payment of amount of Rs.33,000/­ towards rent

for the period of 20.03.2017 to 28.02.2018 @ Rs.3,000/­

towards March, 2018.

20. In the result, we set aside the orders of the High

Court dated 15.01.2018 and 27.02.2018 and further direct

that the appellant be put back in possession of the

premises within a period of one week. The appellant shall

continue to deposit the mesne profit as per order of the

14

High Court dated 01.11.2017 and in the event of any

default committed by the appellant, it shall be open for

the respondent­landlady to take appropriate proceedings

against the appellant. The appeals are allowed

accordingly.

...............................J. ( A.K. SIKRI )

...............................J. ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

NEW DELHI, APRIL 05, 2018.