Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2009 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (7) TMI 1315 - SC - Indian LawsDirection of eviction from the suit premises u/s 14(1)(a) r/w Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - respondent is a tenant in respect of the suit premises - tenant once availed the benefit u/s 14(2) - whether the tenant/respondent had defaulted in payment of rent inasmuch as he had not deposited the rent with the Rent Controller for the aforesaid period after the refusal by the landlord/appellants in the manner required by law - Whether this is a case of second default and the respondent having once availed the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act is not entitled to such benefit in case if it is held to be a second default? - High Court had observed that it was not the case of a second default and therefore reversed the order of the Rent Control Tribunal and directed that no order of eviction could be passed as this was not a case of second default. HELD THAT:- Section 14(1)(a) is a ground for eviction of a tenant for default in payment of rent. In spite of that, protection has been given u/s 15 of the Act to the tenant to avail of the protection given by the Legislature by depositing rent in the manner indicated in Section 15 of the Act. However, proviso to Section 14(2) of the Act takes away the right of a tenant of the benefit of Sub-Section (2) of Section 14 if the tenant having obtained such benefit once in respect of any premises and makes a further default in payment of rent of those premises for three consecutive months. Therefore, it has been made clear that when the tenant makes a second default, no protection can be given to the tenant from eviction. Applying the principles laid down in Atmaram's case [2005 (8) TMI 746 - SUPREME COURT],and the decision in E. Palanisamy [2002 (10) TMI 794 - SUPREME COURT] and in view of our discussions made herein earlier and considering the object of the Act and the intention of the Legislature, we are in respectful agreement with the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions. Since we have already come to the conclusion that since the tenant/respondent has failed to deposit rent in compliance with Section 27 of the Act because in the present case, admittedly, landlord/appellants had not accepted any rent tendered by the tenant/respondent within the time referred to in Section 26, it was the duty of the tenant to deposit such rent before the Rent Controller as prescribed in Section 27 of the Act. Admittedly, this step was not taken by the respondent which is mandatory in nature and, therefore, we must hold that the tenant/respondent had committed a second default in payment of rent and is, therefore, liable to be evicted from the suit premises. The word "may" in the context of the Act, shall be construed as "shall" and therefore, the tenant shall deposit the rent after refusal by the landlord and, accordingly, having not done so, he is liable to be evicted. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and since the tenant/respondent having committed second default for which he is not entitled to be protected under the Act, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller must be restored.
|