Dr. Jagjit Singh Bedi vs Shrimati Jas Rani

Shamsher Bahadur, J.—The petitioner Dr. Jagjit Singh is a tenant of the suit premises, according to him from 1st of July 1957, but according to the owner with effect from 1st of May 1957 at a monthly rent of Rs. 125/- per mensem. The date of commencement of this tenancy is not relevant for the purpose of this petition. A few months after his occupation the tenant moved an application for fixation of standard rent on 21st of October 1957. The owner of the premises retaliated by filing a suit on 30th October 1958 for eviction on ground of non-payment of rent. While the ejectment suit was pending, an application was moved by the owner under sub-section (5) of section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, asking the Court to call upon the tenant to make a deposit of the arrears of rent. By order of the 28th of August 1958; the petitioner-tenant was directed to deposit "the arrears of rent and future rent at the agreed rate in accordance with the time allowed by law." Having failed to make this deposit, a farther application was made to the Court that the defence against the ejectment suit should be struck out. The Subordinate Judge Mr. S.S. Kalha acceded to this request and the order passed by him has been affirmed in the tenant''s appeal by learned District Judge. The tenant has now moved this petition for revision before this Court.

Sub-section (5) of section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, provides that "if the tenant contests the suit as regards the claim for ejectment, the plaintiff landlord may make an application at any stage of the suit for an order, on the tenant defendant to deposit month by month rent at a rate at which it was last paid and also the arrears of rent, if any, and the court, after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, may make an order for the deposit of rent at such rate month by month as it thinks fit and the arrears of rent, if any, and on the failure of the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within fifteen days of 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..........." Before examining the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be observed that the standard rent came to be fixed at Rs. 57/- per mensem on 24th of September 1960. The standard rent fixed at Rs. 57/- per mensem was to be operative from 21st of October, 1957, when the petitioner tenant filed his application for standardising the rent.

It is argued by Mr. Darbari Lal for the tenant that so far as the arrears of rent are concerned, the tenant need make a deposit of that what he considers to be the standard rent and not the agreed rent. As regards the future rent, it is conceded that the agreed rent is payable by the tenant. Support is sought for this construction because of the words ''last paid'' occuring only after the "deposit.....rent". It has been made quite clear in the subsequent clauses that the Court is given the authority to call for the deposit of rent at a rate which has been fixed by it after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, and both the arrears and the future rent are payable at the rate so fixed. It would be noted that the arrears are to be deposited within "fifteen days of the order" while the future rent becomes payable on the fifteenth day of every month, and in both cases the payment is to be made at such rate'' which the Court has determined after opportunity to both the parties. There is no scope for the argument that the rate at which arrears of rent are to be paid is something separate and distinguishable from the rate of future rent. On a plain construction of sub-section (5) of section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. I am of the view that the Court was justified in making an order for payment of arrears and future rent at the rate of Rs. 125/- per mensem, and it cannot be said to contravene the provisions of this statute. What had actually been deposited by the tenant may have been sufficient if the standard rent is calculated at Rs. 57/- per mensem but it would be manifestly absurd to assume that the tenant was free to make a deposit of arrears at the rate he thought should be the standard rent or would come to be fixed as standard rent. Such a construction would introduce hazards of confusion and uncertainty. A person may consider an absurdly low figure to be the standard rent of the premises and may deposit the arrears at that rate. This figure may fall wide of the standard rent which may come to be fixed later and it would obviously be unreasonable to allow any tenant the freedom to make his own assessment of the standard rent in making a deposit of the arrears.

As found by the trial Judge and affirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge, repeated defaults have been made in payments of arrears. The Courts below have enumerated as many as 13 such defaults. The defence of the tenant, in my opinion, was rightly struck off on the ground of his intransigence and I see no reason to come to a conclusion at variance with the Courts below. The petition fails and is dismissed. I would, however, make no order as to costs.