TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELD 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/respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Eviction Case No. E-105 of 1999. At the present juncture, it may be mentioned that the appellants is now facing the charge of committing second default in payment of rent to the appellants in respect of the suit premises. It is also not in dispute that a demand notice dated 31st of March, 2003 was served by the appellants upon the respondent intimating that the respondent was in arrears of rent for three consecutive months from January, 2003 onwards. It is also not in dispute that on receipt of the said demand notice from the appellants, the respondent had sent the arrears of rent for three months for the period from 1st of January, 2003 to 31st of March, 2003 by a money order dated 22nd of April, 2003. It is also not in dispute that the appellants had refused to accept the money order and consequently, the money was refunded to the respondent. The case made out by the respondent was that he had duly complied with the provisions of the Act which was required to be done by him and therefore, it cannot be held that it was a case of second default whereas the case of the appellants either before the Rent Controller or before the High Court was that on refusal to receive the money o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nant would be entitled to protection if he either pays or tenders the arrears of rent within two months of the service of demand. That is to say, the tenant was required to either tender or pay the rent to earn protection. While interpreting the word Neither and Nor , the High Court observed that these words leave no manner of doubt that if there was a valid tender of rent within two months of the notice of demand, the tenant would be protected. 5. In this way, the 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. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also examined the relevant provisions of the Act, namely, Delhi Rent Control Act and also the materials on record. After having examined the provisions of the Act as well as the impugned order and also the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, the only question that has arisen before us to decide in this appeal is whether the tenant/respondent had defaulted in payment of rent inasmuch as he had not deposited the rent with the Ren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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 recoverable from the tenant including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which payment or deposit is made and to continue to pay or deposit, month by month, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. (2) If, in any proceeding for the recovery of possession of any premises on any ground other than that referred to in sub-section (1), the tenant contests the claim for eviction, the landlord may, at any stage of the proceeding, make an application to the Controller for an order on the tenant to pay to the landlord the amount of rent legally recoverable from the tenant and the Controller may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, make an order in accordance with the provisions of the said subsection. (3) If, in any proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) or sub- section (2), there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r persons to whom the rent is payable, the tenant may deposit such rent with the Controller in the prescribed manner: [Provided that in cases where there is a bona fide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the tenant may remit such rent to the Controller by postal money order.] (2) The deposit shall be accompanied by an application by the tenant containing the following particulars, namely: -- (a) the premises for which the rent is deposited with a description sufficient for identifying the premises; (b) the period for which the rent is deposited; (c) the name and address of the landlord or the person or persons claiming to be entitled to such rent; (d) the reasons and circumstances for which the application for depositing the rent is made; (e) such other particulars as may be prescribed. (3) On such deposit of the rent being made, the Controller shall send in the prescribed manner a copy or copies of the application to the landlord or persons claiming to be entitled to the rent with an endorsement of the date of the deposit. (4) If an application is made for the withdrawal of any deposit of rent, the Controller shall, if satisfi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fusal, the tenant had not deposited the rent in compliance with Section 27 of the Act with the Rent Controller, it must be held that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent by not depositing the rent, therefore it was a case of second default which entails the tenant of eviction. Strong reliance once again was placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the decision in Atmaram's case (Supra). 10. Mr.Gandhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, refuted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. He has drawn our attention to Section 27 of the Act and submits that Section 27 cannot be said to be mandatory in nature and only an obligation has been created on the tenant either to pay the rent or tender or to deposit the same with the Rent Controller. In the present case, admittedly, tenant had tendered the rent to the landlord but he had refused to accept the same. After such refusal, it would be open to the tenant to deposit the same in the office of the Rent Controller but even if he does not do so, non deposit of the rent after such refusal cannot be said to be mandatory in nature which entails eviction of the tenant o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rotection 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. 15. Chapter IV, however, deals with Deposit of Rent. Section 26 of the Act provides that if the rent is paid it is the obligation of the landlord to grant receipt for the rent paid to him. In default of payment of rent within the time specified therein, the tenant is also liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date on which such payment of rent is due to the date on which it is paid. The proviso to Section 26(2) of the Act makes it clear that it shall be open to the tenant to remit the rent to his landlord by postal money order. Sub-section (3) of Section 26 also makes the provision that if the landlord or his authorized agen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to grant receipt to the tenant. It is well settled that whether the word may shall be used as shall , would depend upon the intention of the Legislature. It is not to be taken that once the word may is used by the Legislature in Section 27 of the Act, would not mean that the intention of the Legislature was only to show that the provisions under Section 27 of the Act was directory but not mandatory. 16. In other words, taking into consideration the object of the Act and the intention of the Legislature and in view of the discussions made herein earlier, we are of the view that the word may occurring in Section 27 of the Act must be construed as a mandatory provision and not a directory provision as the word may , in our view, was used by the Legislature to mean that the procedure given in those provisions must be strictly followed as the special protection has been given to the tenant from eviction. Such a cannon of construction is certainly warranted because otherwise intention of the Legislature would be defeated and the class of landlords, for whom also, the beneficial provisions have been made for recovery of possession from the tenants on certain grounds, will st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intention of the Legislature would govern design and purpose the Act seeks to achieve. In Sutherland Statutory Construction (3rd Edn) Volume I at page 81 in paragraph 316, it is stated that although the problem of mandatory and directory legislation is a hazard to all governmental activity, it is peculiarly hazardous to administrative agencies because the validity of their action depends upon exercise of authority in accordance with their charter of existence the statute. If the directions of the statute are mandatory, then strict compliance with the statutory terms is essential to the validity of administrative action. But if the language of the statute is directory only, the variation from its direction does not invalidate the administrative action. Conversely, if the statutory direction is discretionary only, it may not provide an adequate standard for legislative action and the delegation. In Crawford on the Construction of Statutes at page 516, it is stated that: The question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the Legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothed. The meaning and intention of the Legislature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner : Provided that in cases where there is a bona fide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the tenant may remit such rent to the Controller by postal money order. 21. This Court in the aforesaid decision, after examining Section 27 of the Act observed at paragraph 21 as follows :- The Act, therefore, prescribes what must be done by a tenant if the landlord does not accept rent tendered by him within the specified period. He is required to deposit the rent in the Court of the Rent Controller giving the necessary particulars as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 27, There is, therefore, a specific provision which provides the procedure to be followed in such a contingency. In view of the specific provisions of the Act it would not be open to a tenant to resort to any other procedure. If the rent is not deposited in the Court of the Rent Controller as required by Section 27 of the Act. and is deposited somewhere else, it shall not be treated as a valid payment/tender of the arrears of rent within the meaning of the Act and consequently the tenant must be held to be in default. 22. In E. Palanisamy vs. Palanisamy (2003) 1 SCC, 123, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompliance with the statutory provisions. Equitable consideration have no place in such matters. The statute contains express provisions. It prescribes various steps which a tenant is required to take. In Section 8 of the Act, the procedure to be followed by the tenant is given step by step. An earlier step is a pre-condition for the next step. The tenant has to observe the procedure as prescribed in the statute. A strict compliance with the procedure is necessary. The tenant cannot straight away jump to the last step i.e. to deposit rent in court. The last step can come only after the earlier steps have been taken by the tenant. We are fortified in this view by the decisions of this Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal and Anr. 1996 (1) SCC 243 and M. Bhaskar v. J. Venkatarama Naidu 1996 (6) SCC 228.. 8. Admittedly the tenant did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 8. The only submission that was advanced on behalf of the appellants was that since the deposit of rent had been made, a lenient view ought to be taken. We are unable to agree with this. The appellants failed to satisfy the conditions contained in Section8. Mere refusal of the landlord to receive rent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
