Jinender Kumar vs Inder Preet Singh

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of learned ARC dated 22nd August, 2008 whereby the learned ARC entertained an application u/s 27 of Delhi Rent control Act filed by the tenant depositing the current monthly rent and also future rent on the ground that landlord was not accepting the same. The contention of the petitioner is that the tenant cannot deposit more than one month''s rent u/s 27 of Delhi Rent Control Act. He relied upon Budh Prakash Sethi Vs. Sumitra Devi,

This contention of the petitioner that only one month''s rent can be deposited under Delhi Rent Control Act and future rent cannot be deposited is not supported by the judgment quoted by him. In this judgment it was contended by counsel for the appellant therein that deposits made by the tenant were invalid since they did not comply with the provisions of Section 26, 27, 28 of Delhi Rent Control Act. This Court observed as under:-

From the evidence on record it is clear that the tenant personally tendered rent, he also sent rent by money orders which were returned to the appellant. The appellant thereafter deposited the rent, as already stated, u/s 27 of the Act. The tenant, as already held, had enjoyed benefit u/s 14(2) of the Act and after the passing of the final order in the earlier proceedings, the landlord did not accept rent from him presumably to create a ground of eviction for the second time within the meaning of the proviso to Section 14(2) of the Act and obtain an order of eviction against the appellant. On the other hand, appellant had been trying his best to protect himself against eviction by tender and deposit of rent. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as the deposits u/s 27 of the Act were invalid, the same cannot be treated as payment for the period ending 30th November, 1970 to the landlord. I am of the view that if the deposit is made under the Rent Act for payment to the landlord and which is available unconditionally to him, such deposit should be treated as a payment to the landlord. The same is the position with respect to the deposits made u/s 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934. As already observed, u/s 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act any person who owes money is entitled to deposit in person who owes money is entitled to deposit in court the money owed by him either in full or in part in the name of his creditor. This proposition would apply to a tenant who owes money by way of rent. I am, therefore, of the view that the tenant had already paid rent for the period ending 30th November, 1970 by depositing the same u/s 27 of the Act with the Rent Controller by virtue of deposit challans Exs. R.4, R.5, R.6 and R.7 and that the said deposits amount to payment to the landlord and that no rent was due to the landlord on 23rd December, 1970 when the notice of demand was issued to the appellant. Thus the landlord had no cause of action to institute the application for eviction u/s 14(1)(a) of the Act. The Controller and the Tribunal in my view erred in holding that the deposits u/s 27 of the Act were invalid. It appears that the two judgments of this court in M/s. Jag Ram Nathu Ram (supra) and S.L. Kapur (supra) were not brought to their notice.

Where a tenant tenders rent to the landlord and landlord refuses to accept the rent, the tenant can deposit the rent u/s 27 of Delhi Rent Control Act by giving particulars as required thereunder. It is not necessary for the tenant that he should take rounds of the Court every moth if landlord is not accepting the rent. The tenant can deposit the future rent also u/s 27 of the Act. There is no bar on deposit of future rent u/s 27 of the Act.

I find no force in the petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.