# HEM CHAND v. THE DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. & ORS

- **Citation:** [1978] 1 S.C.R. 241
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-08-02
- **Bench:** Y. V. Chandrachud, P. S. Kailasam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hem-chand-v-the-delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-ltd-ors-7268
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

241
Drlhi Rent Control Act, 1958-ss. 14(1), 15(1) and 15(7)-Scope of.
Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 provides that no tenant
could be evicted excep! on an application made to the Rent Controller for an
A
B
order for recovery of ~ssession on one or more grounds specified in the section.
Oause (a) to the proVISO provides that if the tenant has neither paid nor tendered
the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two
C
months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been
served on him by the landlord in the manner prescribed, the landlord can apply
for recovery of possession. Sub-section (2) provides that no order for
recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified
in cl. (a) of the proviso if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by
s. 1'. Under s. 15(1) the Rent Controller shall make an order directing the
tenant to pay arrears of rent with a direction that he should c.ontinue to pay or
deposit the rent month by month by the fifteenth of each succeeding month.
Sub-section (6) lays down that if a tenant makes payment or deposit as required
D
by sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (3), no order shall be made for the recovery of possession
on the ground of default in· the payment of rent by the tenant. Sub-section (7)
provides that if the tenant fails to make payment or deposit as required by sub ..
s. ( 1) the Controller may order! the defence against eviction to be struck out and
proceed with the hearing of the application.
1be landlord-respondent filed an application under s. 14 of the Act for the
eviction of the tenant-appellant on grounds of non-payment of rent and unauthorised subletting. In compliance with the directions of the Additional Rent Controller
E
the tenant paid the ar:rears of rent upto a date but failed to deposit the rent
month by month whereupon the landlord made an application under s. 15(7) for
striking out the tenant's defence against eviction. Granting the application the
Rent Controller struck off the tenant's defence on the ground that on the date
of the order (October 15, 1965) the tenant was in default.
On November 26.
1965 1he Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on the ground of sub·
letting.
The. Tribunal a1lowed the tenant's appeals against the orders of the Rent
Controller.
F
On appeal by the landlord the High Court held that when the tenant failed
to make a deposit of the future rents in compliance with the ordet under s. 15(1)
the right to obtain recovery of possession of the premises accrued to the landlord
and the Rent Controller had no power to condone the defalllt of the tenant in
the payment of arrears of rent and to refuse to grant an order.
Allowing the tenant's appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court,
FIELD: l(a) The High Court was in error in allowing the application of
G
the landlord on the basis of the failure of the tenant to comply with the order
undet s. 15(1). The High Court was also in error in holding that the
right
to obtain an onler for recovery of possession accn1ed to the landlord. [246HJ
(b) "The High Court ought to have considered and decided in the
appeal
whether the striking out of the defence by the Rent Controller was right or
not. If the striking out was right then as the Rent Controller had proceeded
with the hearing of the application and passed an order directing possession to
the landlord it ought to uphold the order. In. the event of the High Court
holding that the order striking out the defence was erroneous then the order
H
directing recovery of possession should be set aside and the petition heard by
the Rent Controller after providing an opportunity to the tenant to raise
his
defence. (247BJ
A
B
c
D
E
242
SUPREME COURT REPO&TS
(1978] 1 s.c.r.
2(a) The landlord's contention that the word "may" in s. 15(7) should be
construed as "shall" and that in the event of non-complian~ with s. 15(1) the
defence against eviction should be struck out, has no

## Text

-
HEM CHAND
v.
THE DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD.
& ORS.
August 2, 1977
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. S. KAILASAM JJ.]
241
Drlhi Rent Control Act, 1958-ss. 14(1), 15(1) and 15(7)-Scope of.
Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 provides that no tenant
could be evicted excep! on an application made to the Rent Controller for an
A
B
order for recovery of ~ssession on one or more grounds specified in the section.
Oause (a) to the proVISO provides that if the tenant has neither paid nor tendered
the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two
C
months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been
served on him by the landlord in the manner prescribed, the landlord can apply
for recovery of possession. Sub-section (2) provides that no order for
recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified
in cl. (a) of the proviso if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by
s. 1'. Under s. 15(1) the Rent Controller shall make an order directing the
tenant to pay arrears of rent with a direction that he should c.ontinue to pay or
deposit the rent month by month by the fifteenth of each succeeding month.
Sub-section (6) lays down that if a tenant makes payment or deposit as required
D
by sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (3), no order shall be made for the recovery of possession
on the ground of default in· the payment of rent by the tenant. Sub-section (7)
provides that if the tenant fails to make payment or deposit as required by sub ..
s. ( 1) the Controller may order! the defence against eviction to be struck out and
proceed with the hearing of the application.
1be landlord-respondent filed an application under s. 14 of the Act for the
eviction of the tenant-appellant on grounds of non-payment of rent and unauthorised subletting. In compliance with the directions of the Additional Rent Controller
E
the tenant paid the ar:rears of rent upto a date but failed to deposit the rent
month by month whereupon the landlord made an application under s. 15(7) for
striking out the tenant's defence against eviction. Granting the application the
Rent Controller struck off the tenant's defence on the ground that on the date
of the order (October 15, 1965) the tenant was in default.
On November 26.
1965 1he Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on the ground of sub·
letting.
The. Tribunal a1lowed the tenant's appeals against the orders of the Rent
Controller.
F
On appeal by the landlord the High Court held that when the tenant failed
to make a deposit of the future rents in compliance with the ordet under s. 15(1)
the right to obtain recovery of possession of the premises accrued to the landlord
and the Rent Controller had no power to condone the defalllt of the tenant in
the payment of arrears of rent and to refuse to grant an order.
Allowing the tenant's appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court,
FIELD: l(a) The High Court was in error in allowing the application of
G
the landlord on the basis of the failure of the tenant to comply with the order
undet s. 15(1). The High Court was also in error in holding that the
right
to obtain an onler for recovery of possession accn1ed to the landlord. [246HJ
(b) "The High Court ought to have considered and decided in the
appeal
whether the striking out of the defence by the Rent Controller was right or
not. If the striking out was right then as the Rent Controller had proceeded
with the hearing of the application and passed an order directing possession to
the landlord it ought to uphold the order. In. the event of the High Court
holding that the order striking out the defence was erroneous then the order
H
directing recovery of possession should be set aside and the petition heard by
the Rent Controller after providing an opportunity to the tenant to raise
his
defence. (247BJ
A
B
c
D
E
242
SUPREME COURT REPO&TS
(1978] 1 s.c.r.
2(a) The landlord's contention that the word "may" in s. 15(7) should be
construed as "shall" and that in the event of non-complian~ with s. 15(1) the
defence against eviction should be struck out, has no force.
In the context of
s. 15(7) it is not necessary to construe the word "may" as "shall".
It is also
in keeping with the legislative intent that a discretion is confeirred on the Controller either to strike out the defence or not.
[245GJ
(b) It is clear from s. 15(7) that the enquiry will have to be proceeded with
even when the defence of the tenant has been struck. out.
[246E]
3. The High Court is right in holding that the Rent Controller has n& discretion to extend the time prescribed under s. 15 ( l). Payment or deposit in
compliance with the order under s. 15(1) takes ·away the right of the landlord
to claim recovery of possession on the ground of default of rent. The legislature
has given statutory protection to the tenant by affording him an opportunity to
pay the arrears of rent within one month from the date of the order. This
statutory provision cannot be modified as rights of parties depend on compliance
with an order under s. 15(1 ). [247E-F]
ClVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1748/74
and 669/75.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated
8-5-1972 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.0. Nos. 208 and 200
elf
1967.
AND
C!VlL APPEALS NOS. 713-714 OF 1976
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
25-5-1976 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. Nos. 49-50 of 1972.
AND
ClVIL APPEAL NO. 271 OF 1976
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated
6-2-1976 of the Delhi Court in S.A.0. No. 16 of 1972.
AND
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1364 OF 1975
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 16-6-1975 of the.
Delhi
High Court in S.A.O. 125 of 1975.
B. N. Lokur and A. G. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellant in
(CA
1748/74 and 669/75).
H. K. Puri for Respondent No. 1.·
G
S. N. A ndleJ', B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi for the Interveners.
Sultan Singh for the Appellants in (CAs. 713-714/16).
S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and P. N. Puri for Respondee.t In
(S.A. 713-714 of 1976).
H
F. C. Bedi and A. G. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellant (In
C.A.
271/76).
Vma Datta for the Respondent (In C.A. 271/76).
-
-· I
'
,
(
{
I ,
'
\ i
/
!
'\
I
HEM CHAND v. D.C.M. (Kailasam, J.)
243
Sultan Singh for the petitioner in SLP (Civil) No. 1364/75.
Uma Datta for the Respondent in (SLP (Ci~il) No. 1364/75.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS : 1748 OF 1974 AND 669 OF 1915
The Judgment df the Court was de.livered by
KAILASAM, J.-These appeals are by certificate granted to Hem a
Chand, the tenant, under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against
the judgment of a Full Bench of1 the Delhi High Court holding that
the time prescribed under section 15(1) cannot be extended by the
Rent Controller.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi is the intervener
in both the appeals.
The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. is the landlord.
The
appellant-tenant occupied the premises at an agreed rent of Rs. 165/-
p.m.
The tenant defaulted in payment of rent and the
landlord
issued a notice of demand on 10th August, 1963 calling upon the
tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,970/- being the arrears of rent and
also complaining that he had unautborisedly sublet the premises. The
tenant paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- only towards arrears within
the
notice period.
As the balance amount was not paid, on February
24, 1964, the landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant
under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act on grounds of nonpa~me.nt of rent and unauthorised subletting.
It impleaded
the
alleged sub-tenants also as respondents.
On September 9,
1964,
the Additional Rent Controller, on the application of the landlord,
passe<.l an order under section 15(1)' of the Act directing the tenant
to deposit all the arrears of rent due after deducting Rs. 1,000/- already paid and future rent at the rate of Rs. 165- per month.
The
arrears were not paid within a month but the tenant deposited a sum
of Rs. 3,455/- on December 15, 1964, being the rent in full
due
till the end of November, 1964.
Subsequently, the rent was not
depmited month by month and
on July 15, 1965,
the landlord
made an application under section 15(7) of the Act and prayed that
the defence of the tenant against eviction be struck out.
The tenant
then made good the deficiency and deposited the rent upto date.
On
October 15, 1965, the
Additional Rent Controller ·struck out the
defence of the tenant stating that on the date of the order i.e. October
I 5, 1965 there were arrears of rent.
After that the Additional Rent
Controller proceeded with the hearing of the application of the landlord und on November 26, 1965, passed an order of eviction
on
the ground of subletting.
He declined to order eviction for
nonpayment of rent because the tenant had deposited the arrears
of
rent on the date when the defence was struck out.
Aggrieved by these orders the tenant filed two appeals before the
Rent Control Tribunal, on~ against the order striking out the defence
and the other against the order granting eviction.
The Tribunal decided both the appeals in favour of the tenant holding that since the
tenant had gradually cleared off arrears amounting to Rs. 5,000/- or
more which indicated his bona fide intentions to pay all the rent his
defence ought not to have been struck out.
The delay in making
c
D
E
F
G
R
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1978] 1 S.C.R.
the deposits was condoned subject to payment o~ Rs. 150/- by the
tenant as cost.
The order of the Additional Rent Controller striking
out the defence and granting an order for eviction in favour ot_ ~
landlord was set aside.
The case was remanded for being tried
on merits after giving the tenant an opportunity to defend his eviction
on the ground of subletting.
Aggrieved at the orders of the Tribunal the landlord filed
two
appeals before the High Court.
The appeals were heard by a single
Judge but having regard to the important questions of Jaw the matter
was referred to a Full Bench.
The Full Bench held that when;
a
tenant makes default in deposit or payment under section 15 the Rent
Controller is bound to pass an order for recovery of possession and
cannot refuse the landlord's prayer for eviction.
The Full Bench
held that Rent Controller had no right to condone the delay, if any,
in making payment according to the requirements of section
15 (!)
of the Act.
Before us it was submitted by the learned. counsel for the appellant
that the High Court was in error in holding that under section 15 (1)
of the Act the Rent Controller had no discretion to extend the time
of one month prescribed under the section.
It was 'further argued
that in any event the High Court was in error in holding that
the
Rent Controller was bound to pass an order for recovery of possession by the landlord when there was a default in payment
under
section 15 (1) without further bearing of the application by
the
landlord.
In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties it is dei;irable
to set out the rele"'1nt provisions of the Act.
The main objett for
enacting the Delhi Rent Control Act is for providing control
of
rents and evictions.
In order to achieve that object certain restrictions are placed on the landlord before getting a tenant evicted. Section 14 ( 1) provides that no tenant could be evicted except on
an
application made to the Controller for an order for recovery of possession on one or more grounds specified in the section.
We are concerned with the ground of default in payment of rent which is provided for in section 14(1) (a).
If the tenant has neither paid nor
tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from
him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for
the arrears of rent has been served on him by thCl landlord in
lhe
manner prescribed, the landlord can apply for recovery of possession.
Under the sub-section a notice of demand for arrears of rent should
be served by the lancllord on the tenant r"quiring him to pay
the
arrears of rent within two months.
If the tenant pays the arrears
of rent within two months of the service of notice, the landlord cannot get an order for recovery of possession on the ground of default
in payment of rent.
If the tenant fails to pay as required under section
14(1)(a) the proceedings are taken under section 15(1) of the Act.
The Controller shall after giving the parties an opportunity of being
heard, make an order directing the tenant to pay to 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 the rent were
legally
-
;
,>
-
,I"
'
-
'
-- -- - i
,.
'
HBM CHAND v. D.C.M. (Kai/asam, I.)
245
recoverable from the tenant with a direction that he should contiuue
A
to pay or deposit the rent month by month by the fifteenth of each
succeeding month.
This is a second opportunity provided to the
l!eunt to pay the arrears of rent even though he might not
have
complied with the notice under sectiou 14(1)(a).
If the
tenant
pays the arrears of rent within one month from the date of the order
of the Controller as required under section 15 ( 1) the landlord cannot have any further complaint about the default in payment
of
B
rent for section 14(2) provides that no order for the recovery
of
possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in
clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, if the tenant
makes payment or deposit as required by section 15.
Therefore if
an order under section 15 (1) is duly complied with, the landlord
cannot avail himself of the ground specified in section 14(1)(a), that
is failure of the tenant to pay arrears of rent within two months
of
C
the date of service of notice on the tenant.
This position is made
clear by section 15(6) which lays down that if a tenant makes payment or deposit as required by sub-section ( 1) or sub-section (3), no
order shall be made for the recovery of possession on the ground of
default in the payment of rent by the tenant.
Thus far there is no dispute.
A further question arises as to
D
what are the consequences if the tenant fails to comply with an order
under section 15 (1) .
On behalf of the tenant it was submitted that
the period of one month prescribed under section 15(1) is not mandatory and that the Rent Controller has discretion to extend the time.
In any event it was submitted that the Rent Controller can only proceed with the hearing of the application and cannot accept failure
to comply with section 15(1) by it<elf as the basis for making
an
E
ordoc for recovery of possession.
On behalf of the landlord
it
WM submitted that the view of the Full Bench that when a default
is made in complying with an order under section 15(1), the Rent
Controller is bound to pass an order for recovery of possession and
cannot refuse the landlord's prayer for eviction, is correct.
Section
15 (7) provides that if a tenant fails to make payment or deposit as
required by section 15(1), the Controller may order the
defence
p
against eviction to be struck out and proceed with the hearing
of
the application.
It is. seen that on the failure by the
tenant
td
make a payment, the Controller may order the defence to be struck
out.
This confers a discretion on the Rent Controller either
to
strike out the defence or not depending upon the circumstances
ofl
the case.
It was contended on behalf of the landlord that the word
"may" should be construed as "shall" and in the event of
nonG
comnliance with section 15(1) the nefence against eviction shol'ld
be struck out.
This contenti<in cannot be accepted
for in
the
context of section 15(7) it is not necessary to construe the
word
"may" as "shall". It is also in keeping with the legislative intention
that a discretion is conferred on the controller either to strike out
the defence or not.
Further it is significant to note that the •ubsection was amended and the word "may" was introduced in place
H
of the word "shall" in the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1 <1<;'
Section 13(5) as it stood in that Act provided that on fue failure
of the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within fifteen days of
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
246
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 1 S.C.R.
the date of the order or to deposit the rent at such rate for any month
by the 15th of the next following month, the Court shall order the
defence against ejectment to be struck out.
The introduction of
the word "may" in the place of "shall" should be given its due meaning.
The contention of the learned coun~el on behalf of the tenant
that the secton confers a discretion on the Rent Controller to strike
out the defence or not has to be accepted.
If the defence is
not
struck out the hearing of the application of the landlord will h•ne lo
be proceeded with giving opportunity to the tenant to raise his defence
but if the defence is struck out the Rent Controller will proceed with
:he hearing of the application of the landlord and if the iandlord
makes out a case, order his application for recovery of possession.
The result is that if the tenant deposits the rent in accordance with
the notice under section 14(1) (a) or complies with an order tmder
section 15 (I) within one month from the date of the order, the landlord cannot recover possession of the premises on the ground specified
in section 14(1) (a). But if there is non-compliance of both sections 14(l)(a) and section 15(1), the cause of action of the hndlord praying for possession of the premises on the ground of failure
to pay arrears of rent survives and the landlord can proceed with the
application and make out his case.
The provisions of the Act do
nut warrant the view that in the event of the failure of the tenant to
deposit the rent under section 15 (I) the Rent Controller is bound to
pass an order for recovery of the possession for it yet remains
for
the landlord to prove his case that there was non-compliance
of
section 14(1)(a). It is clear from section 15(7) that an inquir<. will
haYe to be proceeded with even when the defence of the tenant has
been struck out.
More so this procedure is applicable when
lhe
defence is not struck out but only there is a failure to comply with
an order under section 15 (1). The Full Bench of the Delhi High
Court has held that if the landlord fulfils the conditions m"ntioned
in the clauses to the proviso to sub-section (I) of section 14. including clause (a), the Controller was bound to pass an order for recovery of possession against the tenant and cannot refuse the landlord
the prayer for eviction.
In the concluding part of its judgmcn' the
Full Bench expressed its view that when the tenant failed to make a
deposit of the future rents 'n compliance with the order passed under
section 15 (1) against him a right to obtain an order for recovery
of possession accrued to the landlord and the Controller had no power
to condone the default of the tenant and to refuse to grant this order.
While we agree with the view of the Full Bench that the Controller
has no power to condone the failure of the tenant to pay arrears of
rent as required under section 15 (1), we are satisfied that the l'ull
Bench fcll into an error in holding that the right to obtain an order
for recovery of possession accrued to the landlord.
As we have set
out earlier in the event of the tenant failing to comply with the order
under section 15 (1) the application will have to be heard giving an
opportunity to the tenant if his defence is not struck out under section 15 (7) and without hearing the tenant if his defence is struck
ont.
The Full Bench is therefore in error in allowing the application of the landlord
on the basis of the failure
of
the
tenant to comply with an order under section 15 ( 1). The landlord
-
(
\..
'
>
/
'
' ' . '
-
7
(
HEM CHAND v. D.C.M. (Kailasam,.J.)
247
had appealed to the High Coort against the order of the Tribunal
setting aside the Rent Controller's order striking out the defence. The
High Court ought to have considered and decided in the
appeal
whether the striking out of the defence by the Rent Controller was
right or not.
If the striking out was right then as the Rent Controller had proceeded with the hearing of the application and passed
A
an order directing possession to the landlord it ought to be upheld,
but in the event of the High Court holding that the order striking out
the defence by the Rent Controller was erroneous then the
order
directing recovery of possession should be set aside and the petition
of the landlord heard by the Rent Controller after providing an opportunity to the tenant to raise his defence .
Now the question that remains is whether the Rent Controller has any discretion to extend the time prescribed in section 15 (I).
This section requires the Controller, after hearing the parties, to make
an order directing the tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit with
the Controller within one month of the date of the order, the arrears
of rent, with a direction that he should continue to pay or deposit,
month by month, a sum equivalent to the rent.
This is a second
opportunity given to the tenant to pay arrears of rent.
Without the
protection given under the Act the landlord can on 15 days' notice
ending with the month get the tenant evicted.
The Rent Control
Act protects the tenant from such eviction and gives him an opportunity to pay the arrears of rent within two months from the date of
notice of demand as provided in section 14(1)(a). Even if he fails
to pay, a further opportunity is_ given to the tenant to pay or deposit
the arrears within one month under section 15 (I). Such payment
or deposit in compliance with the order under section 15 (1) takes
away the right of the landlord to claim recovery of possession on the
ground of default in payment of rent.
The legislature has given
statutory protection to the tenant by affording him an opportunity to
pay the arrears of rent within one month from the date of the order.
This statutory provision cannot be modified as rights of parties depend
on the compliance with an order under section 15 (1).
In the circumstances, we agree with the Full Bench that the Rent Controller
has no discretion to extend the time prescribed under section 15 ( 1).
The result is that the appeal by the tenant is allowed and the matter
remitted to the High Court with the direction that it shall hear both
the appeals preferred by the landlord afresh and dispose them of
according to law in the light of our observations. If the High Court
holds that the Rent Controller was right in striking out the defence
of the tenant, it will allow the appeals of the landlord and direct recovery of possession from the tenant.
But m the event of the High
Court holding that the order of the Rent Controller striking out the
defence was erroneous, it will remit the matter to the Rent Controller
for fresh disposal, after hearing the parties.
Ordered accordingly.
There will be no order as to costs.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 713-714 OF 1976
These two appeals are by the tenant by special leave against the
judgment of the High Court of Delhi confinning the order of the Rent
Controller and the Rent Tribunal and directing his eviction.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
- B
c
D
E
F
248
SUPREMB COURT REPORTS
[1978] 1 5.C.R.
The eviction was sought for on the grounds of non-payment of
rent and acquisition of alternative residence.
An order under section 15(1) was passed by the Rent Controller directing the tenant to
pay arrears of rent within the time allowed and to continue to pay
future rent in accordance with the provisions of the section.
The
tenant did not pay or deposit the rent as directed.
The landlord
filed an application under section 15 (7) and the Rent Controller struck
out the defence and proceeded to dispose of the application of the
landlord on taking evidence.
On May 17, 1971 the eviction was
ordered.
Appeals were preferred by the. tenant against the order
striking out the defence and directing eviction on account of
default in payment of rent.
The single Judge of the High Court following the Full
Bench
decision in The Delhi Cloth and ~neral Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Hem
Chand and Anr. (1972 DLT 473) held that the time prescribed under section 15 ( 1) cannot be extended and as the tenant had failed
to comply with an order made under that section the appeals were
dismissed.
Though two appeals were preferred both of them
wer<>
disposed of on the ground that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction
to extend the time and condone the delay.
The question as
to
whether the striking out of the defence by the Rent Controller was
pro(>« or not was not considered by the court.
We have
held
~her that if it is found that the striking out of the defence
was
erroneous the tenant is entitled to an opportunity to defend
the
application, but if it is found that the defence was properly struck
out, then the tenant's appeals will have to be dismissed.
Both the
appeals are remitted to the High Court for disposal in the light of the
observations made above.
No order as to costs.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 271 OF 1976
This appeal is by the tenant by special leave against the judgment
of the Delhi High Court dismissing the tenant's appeal.
The tenant
failed to pay or deposit arrears of rent as directed under section 15(1)
of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
In this case the defence of the tenant
was not struck out under section 15 (7).
The finding of the fOUrtS
below that the tenant failed' to comply with an order under section
15 ( 1) is not disputed.
The order of eviction is therefore correct
and this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1364 OF 1975
No merits.
Dismissed.
P.B.R.
."\
\'
-
>