Sh. Manohar Lal (deceased) through Legal Heirs vs Prem Nath Gera (deceased) through Legal Heirs

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the impugned judgment dated 26.4.2011 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal which has directed eviction of the Appellants/tenants u/s 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short ''the Act), which is a provision for eviction for non-payment of rent. An order for eviction is passed u/s 14(1)(a) of the Act, if the tenant fails to comply with the order of deposit of rent u/s 15(1) of the Act. In a petition u/s 14(1)(a) of the Act eviction is not ordered and benefit is given of the provision of Section 14(2) of the Act by denying the right of eviction to the landlord only if the tenant complies with the order to deposit the rent u/s 15(1) of the Act.

The facts of the case are that an order was in fact passed u/s 15(1) of the Act on 24.07.2002. As per this order dated 24.7.2002, the arrears were to be paid and future rent month by month was to be paid/deposited. The admitted facts are that this order was complied with only till January, 2006 and from February, 2006 till the passing of the eviction order by the Additional Rent Controller on 27.07.2009, the order was not complied with.

Learned senior counsel for the Petitioners sought to argue that the original tenant died and thereafter, the legal heirs did not deposit/pay the rent on an advice that the legal heirs do not have to comply with an order u/s 15(1) of the Act. The admitted position, therefore which emerges is that right from February, 2006 till July, 2009, and which is indeed not a short period, the Petitioners/legal heirs of the original tenant did not pay any rent. The law in this regard is well settled that on mere non compliance of the order u/s 15(1) of the Act it cannot be said that there is a willful default. The issue was examined at length by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti Vs. Bhola Nath and Another, . In the judgment of Ram Murti (supra) the Supreme Court clarified the position that merely because there is any default, would not automatically mean that the tenant will not be liable to the benefit of the protection of Section 14(2) of the Act against eviction. The Supreme Court gave various examples that the rent may not be deposited pursuant to the order u/s 15(1) of the Act because of many exigencies like an accident of the clerk of the lawyer, or some grave illness of the tenant and so on. The Supreme Court therefore clarified the position that there is no automatic denial of the protection u/s 14(2) for the non compliance of Section 15(1) of the Act. In the present case however the admitted position is for no less than around 2 1/2 years, the rent was not paid/deposited by the legal heirs of the tenant. I refuse to believe that legal heirs of tenant can be of a legal opinion that they can continue to stay in the tenanted premises but are not liable to pay the rent although they continued to stay, enjoy and occupy the tenanted premises. To have an opinion that an order u/s 15(1) has not to be complied with is totally different from the fact that legal heirs would always have the knowledge that every tenant is bound to pay rent for the tenanted premises every month for which the tenanted premises are occupied.

In my opinion, therefore, in view of the admitted default, in not having paid/deposit the rent from February, 2006 to July, 2009, the Petitioners were rightly held disentitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act, on account of non compliance of order u/s 15(1) of the Act.

I also agree with the Additional Rent Control Tribunal that it is not the position in law that firstly there must be passed an order of striking of defence u/s 15(7) of the Act and only thereafter the benefit u/s 14(2) of the Act can be denied. In fact, once there is non-payment or delay in deposit/payment of the rent, there is non-compliance of Section 15(1) order disentitling the benefit u/s 14(2) and it is the tenant who has to move an application for condo nation of delay giving the reasons as to why there is non- compliance/delayed compliance of the order u/s 15(1) of the Act. The shoe is not on the other foot as is sought by learned senior counsel for the Petitioners that first the landlord must apply for striking of the defence and only then, the tenant is bound to give the reasons for non-compliance of the order u/s 15(1) of the Act.

I may note that the legislature has deleted the provision of Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which provided for the right of second appeal to this Court. Of course, the right of second appeal was very limited on a substantial question of law only. Once the provision of Section 39 of the Act has been deleted from the statute book, the provision of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not meant to be a substitute thereof. There has to be gross perversity or illegality which shocks judicial conscience and there has to be caused grave injustice before this Court is called upon to exercise its discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any reason whatsoever in the facts of the present case, where there is an admitted default in non compliance for 2 1/2 years of the order u/s 15(1) of the Act, so as to persuade me to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Dismissed.