Holding

A tenant is entitled to the benefit of section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 even if he previously obtained a similar benefit under section 13(2) of the 1952 Act.

Summary

The landlords filed three eviction suits against three tenants for non‑payment of rent under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. While the suits were pending, the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 came into force and the tenants paid the arrears, obtaining protection from eviction under section 13(2) of the 1952 Act. After a second default, the tenants again deposited the arrears as required by section 15 of the 1958 Act and claimed protection under section 14(2) of the 1958 Act. The landlords argued that the proviso to section 14(2) barred a second benefit because the tenants had already received a similar benefit under the 1952 Act. The Supreme Court held that the benefit under section 14(2) of the 1958 Act is distinct and not negated by the earlier benefit under the 1952 Act, and the proviso applies only to benefits derived under the same provision. Consequently, the tenants were entitled to the non‑eviction protection, and the appeals of the landlords were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a tenant who has already obtained protection from eviction under section 13(2) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 can claim the benefit of non‑eviction under section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 after a second default.
Interpretation of the proviso to sub‑section 2 of section 14 of the 1958 Act.
Effect of the saving clause in section 57 of the 1958 Act on the applicability of the 1952 Act provisions.

Legislation cited

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1952s. 13(2)
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 14(2), s. 15, s. 57
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 106

Subjects

evictionrent arrearsnon‑eviction protectionstatutory interpretationsaving clauselandlord‑tenantdepositdefault

Judgment

537

~SARAH ASllllt SARAH & ORS. B'l'C. nc.
v. A
1'EAllY W. WUS'lllP (P) LTD. B'l'C.

APRIL 15, 1986

[R.B. MISRA. AND M.M. DUTr, JJ,)
B
• "" Ddhi Rent Control Act, 1958, a. 14(2) - Tenant
clepo.tt!ng arrears of rent - When entitled to protection of

-
non""eviction.

n,. appellants-landlord• filed three eviction petitions
t apiut the three n11pondente-ten.ants in rHpect of different
portf.Oll.I of • lluUdf.111 dtuattd in New Delhi under section c
)"13(1) of the Dtlh! and Ajar Rent Control Act 1952 (Act of
l P5U on till JJ'Olllld of 110n-paygient of rent. During the
pe!ldtncy of the proceedings, the U.lhi Rent Control Act 1958
(Act of 1958) c.. into force, The re1pondents--tenants,
hoftqr, depolited the arrears and got the benefit · of
D
Mll..,.vicUon ~r section 13(2) of the Act of 1952 and the
petf.tf.01111 Wl!re dis..ts1ed.

IP· The appellants-landlords again filed three petitions for
evictiOll of the respondents on the ground that the
f9tpolldenta-t!H!anu had co.Utted a 11econd default in the
.... N)'Dlnt of 11rrur• of rent. ?bit re11pondent• depolited the
1rr11rf of rent in ti11111 as contemplsted by section 15 of the
Act of 1958 and 11ought the protection of non-eviction within
--4 the ..,ning of aub-section 2 of section 14 of the Act of 1958.
The appellants contended before the Additional Rent Controller
,. that. the respondents had derived benefit of non-eviction under
stction 13(2) of the Act of 1952 once and they were not F
entitled to gtt the sue benefit under section 14(2) twice
over in view of the proviso to 1ub-section (2) of section 14
of the Act of 1958, It was ar'1Jld on behalf of the respondents
that they had depolited the arrears of rent aa provided by e.
15 of the Act of 1958 and therefore they were entitled to get
the benefit of sub-stction 2 of 11ectf.on 14 and the benafit G
~--'f{derived by the respondents under section 13(2) of the Act of
1952 will not stand in the wey of the respondents getting the
benefit of 11ub-section 2 of section 14 of the Act of 1958, The

H
538 SUPREME CO~RT REPORTS [19861 2 s.c.R.
A
Additional Rent Controller dismissed the petitions holding y-""
that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of
sub-section 2 of section 14 of the Act on account of the
deposit made by them in pursuance of the provisions of section
15 of the Act of 1958 and that the benefit once derived by the
respondents under section 13(2) of the Act of 1952 will not
B attract the proviso to sub-section 2 and they are entitled to
the benefit of non-eviction under sub-section 14(2) of the Act
of 1958, The Rent Control Tribunal and the High Court4 •
confirmed the order of the Additional Rent Controller in the

c
first and second appeal respectively.

Dismissing the appeals by the appellants,
-
HELD: 1. The respondents cannot be deprived of the
benefit of section 14(2) of the 1958 Act merely because they-,'
had obtained similar benefit under sub-section 2 of section 13
of the Act of 1952. (546 F-G]
D
2(i). If the words of statute are clear, there is no
question of interpretation. Gr8111118tical construction has been
accepted as the golden rule. (546 F]

2(ii). Sub-section 2 of s. 14 of the 1958 Ac~
E contemplates to give the benefit to a tenant of non-evictio11t
if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by section
15. Obviously, therefore, sub-section 2 contemplates that the ,..
benefit of non-eviction under this sub-section can be given
only to a tenant who has made a deposit as required by ~
section 15 of the Act of 1958. Therefore, the deposit made
F
under section 13(2) of the Act of 1952 has been completely~
excluded by sub-section 2. The proviso to sub-section 2 also .
puts a bar on deriving the benefit under this sub-section i.e.
sub-section 2 of section 14; thus if the expressions "deposit,
under-section 15 in sub-section 2 of section 14" and "such
benefit" in the proviso thereto is given a meaning, there is
G no escape from the conclusion that no second benefit can be
given to a tenant if he had already received the benefit under
sub-section 2 by deposit made in accordance with the
provisions of section 15 of the Act of 1958. (545 C-E] '~-•
3. Sub-section 2 of s. 57 is a ssving clause and
provides that notwithstanding the repeal of the Act of 1952,
RAGRUNANDAN SARUP v, PEAREY LAL [MISRA, J,] 539

A
..._,,,.all suits and other proceedings under the said Act pending at
the c~ncement of this Act, before any court or other
authority shall be continued and disposed of in accordance
with the provisions of the said act, as if the said Act had
continued in force and this Act had not been passed. In view
of this clear saving clause the deposit made by the
B
respondents llllllt be taken to be a deposit under section 13(2)
of the Act of 1952 and if the case is covered squarely by
t"·· µuh-section 2 of section 57, it is not at all necessary to
take into consideration the other provisions of the Act.

-
(545 H; 546 A-B]

4. There is marked difference between the provisions of
t a. 13(2) of the Act of 1952 and as. 14(2) and LS of the Act of c
1958, Section 15(2) is redically different from the provisions
~f section 13 of the old Act and the distinction between the
two sections has been clearly made out by the Delhi High Court
in lllan llaj Jayna v. S.P. Singh, A.l,R. 1973 Delhi 297.
(546 E-F]
D
mi.a Raj Jayna v. s.P. Singh, A.1.R. 1973 Delhi 297'
approved.

f" J.L Steel Ltd. v. Union of India, (1969] 2 s.c.R. 481,
497, referred to.
E

- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1976 etc.
Civil Appeal No. 1921 of

-'4 From the Order dated 17.9.75 of the Delhi High Court in
S.A.O. No. 144 of 1975.
T- F
Madan Bhatia and Sushil Kumar for the appellants,

R,P, Bhatt and Parveen Kumar for the Respondents,

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
R.B. KISRA, J, The fate of the present connected
,.1'-1iappeals by special leave hinges upon the interpretation of
section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Act of 1958").

Premises No, 9607 known as Pyar~ Lal Building, Janpath H
and Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, is owned by the appellants, Three
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 2 s.c.R.

A
different portions of the said building were let out to three~
different firms, M/s. Pearey Lal Workshop (P) Ltd., M/s.
Ghaziabad Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. and M/s. Pearey Lal & Sons,
on agreed rent of Rs. 400, Rs. 273 and Rs. 1094 per month
respectively.

·B The tenants-respondents had applied for fixation of
standard rent before the Rent Controller who fixed standard
rent of the three premises but on appeal the order of the Ren1;4 •
Controller fixing standard rent was set aside by the High
Court by its order dated May 22, 1972 holding that the tenants
were liable to pay the agreed rent. -
c
It appears that the tenants fell in arrears of rent and-r
did not pay the same in spite of service of notice of demand.
The appellants, therefore, were compelled to file three;
different petitions for eviction of the respondents under
section 13(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952
D (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1952"). During the
pendency of the proceedings the Act of 1958 came into force.
The tenants however deposited the arrears and got the benefit
of non-eviction under section 13(2) of the Act. of 1952 which
provides that no decree or order for the recovery of
possession of any premises shall be passed on the ground ofoli
E default in payment of rent if, on the first date of the
hearing of the proceedings for eviction or within such further
time as may be allowed by the court, the tenant pays in cash
the arrears of rent then due together with the costs of the
suit.
-
F The respondents again conmitted a default in the payment
of arrears of rent and failed to pay the same within two''(
months of the service of notice of demand as required by
Clause (a) of sub-section 1 of section 14 of the Act of 1958.
The appellants therefore filed three petitions giving rise to
the present appeals for eviction on the ground of second
G default. The respondents, however, deposited the arrears of
rent within one month of the date of the order as contemplated
by section 15 of the Act of 1958 and sought the protection of
non-eviction within the meaning of sub-section 2 of section 14'lit.-~ ,
of the Act of 1958. The appellants, however, sought the
advantage of the proviso to sub-section 2 of section 14 and
H alleged that the respondents had derived the benefit of
RAG!UNANll!\N SARUP v. PEAREY I.AL [MISRA, J,) 541

non-eviction under section 13(2) of the Act of 1952 once and A
they are not entitled to get the same benefit under section
14(2) twice over in view of the proviso to sub-section of
section 14 of the Act of 1958.

These petitions for eviction were resisted by the
respondents on the ground, inter alia, that they had deposited B
the arrears of rent as provided -i;y-section 15 of the Act of
~1958. They were entitled to get the benefit of sub-section (2)
of section 14 and the benefit derived by the respondents under
section 13(2) of the Act of 1952 will not stand in the way of
the respondents getting the benefit of sub-section 2 of
, section 14 of the Act of 1958.
~ c
The Additional Rent Controller dismissed the petitions
.,of the appellants holding that the respondents were entitled
to the benefit of sub-section 2 of section 14 of the Act on
account of the deposit made by them in pursuance of the
provisions of section 15 of the Act of 1958. lie was of the
view that the benefit once derived by the respondents under D
section 13(2) of the Act of 1952 will not attract the proviso
to sub-section 2 and they are entitled to the benefit of
non-eviction under section 14(2) of the Act of 1958.
~
The appellants feeling aggrieved took up the matter
before the Rent Control Tribunal by way of appeal bt.:t the E
Tribunal relying upon Ihm Raj Jayna v. S.P. Singh, A. I.R.
1973 Delhi 297 dismissed the appeal. The appellants took up
,. the matter to the High Court in second appeal but those
appeals also met the same fate. The appellants have now
approached this Court by special leave.
F
The only point that survives for consideration is
whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit of
sub-section 2 of section 14 of the Act of 1958 and the
decision of this question depends upon the interpretation of
sub-section 2 together with its proviso.
G
Section 13(1) of the 1952 Act, insofar as material,
'reads

"13. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in
any other law or any contract, no decree or order
H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19861 2 s.c.R.

A for the recovery of possession of any premises .
shall be passed by any Court in favour of landlord
against any tenant (including a tenant whose
tenancy is terminated.)

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall
apply to any suit or other proceeding for such
B recovery of possession if the Court is satisfied.

(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered
the whole of the arrears of rent due wi'thin one
month of the date on which a notice of demand for
the arrears of rent has been served on him by the ,
c landlord in the manner provided in section 106 of ~
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (IV of 1882); or
,.
..........••..•••••••••.....................••••• ~.

(2) No decree or order for recovery of possession
D shall be passed on the ground specified in clause
(a) of the proviso to sub-section (1), if, on the
first day of the hearing of the suit or within such
further time as may be allowed by the Court, the
tenant pays in Court the arrears of rent then due~
together with the costs of the suit.
E
The corresponding provision to s .13 of the 1952 Act is s. 14
of the 1958 Act. In so far as material it reads :

"14. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary ~
contained in any other law or contract, no order or
F decree for the recovery of possession of any
premises shall be made by any court or Controller
in favour of the landlord against a tenant.

Provided that the Controller may, on an application
made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order
G for the recovery of possession of the premises on
one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-

(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered
the whole of the arrears of the rent legally
recoverable from him within two months of the date
H
RAGIUNANDAN SARUP V• PEAREY I.AL [MISRA, J.) 543

on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent A
has been served on him by the landlord in the
manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882;

...................................................
B
(2) No order for the recovery of possession of any
premises shall be made on the ground specified in
clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1), if
the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by
section 15;

Provided that no tenant shall be entitled to the C
benefit under this sub-section, if, having obtained
such benefit once in respect of any premises he
again makes a default in the payment of rent of
those premises for three consecutive months.''

The learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Ihm D
Raj Jayna v. S.P. Singh (Supra) dealing with the interpreta-
tion of sub-section 2 of section 14 observed as follows :

"Once the tenant pays the arrears of rent and the
future rent in accordance with section 15(1) he is

- entitled to the benefit of section 14(2) to have
the petition for eviction dismissed. The proviso to
section 14(2) however, denies to the tenant such
benefit for a second time. lie can thus get such
benefit only once, it is to be noted that the
E

previous suit was dismissed by Shri Tandon and the
dismissal was confirmed by the High Court under F
section 13(2) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control
Act, 1952. The provisions of section 13(2) were not
in pari materia to the provisions of section 14(2)
of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The payment
under section 13(2) of the old Act was to be made
on the first hearing of the suit or without such G
further time as may be allowed by the Court. On the
other hand, under Section 14(2) of the new Act, in
addition to the arrears of rent the Controller can
also order the payment of pendente lite rent. Under
section 13(2) of the old Act there was-no provision
H
544 SUPREm COURT REPORTS (19861 2 s.c.R.

A for the payment of pendente lite rent. The benefi(t_,,.;:
of section 14(2) under the new Act is available o:I
payment of the arrears as well as the pendente lite
rent. In view of these differences between the two
provisions it cannot be said that the dismissal of
the previous suit by Shri Tandon was under Section
14(2) of the new Act. The benefit of Section 14(2)
B is being given to the tenant, therefore, for the
first time in the present proceedings. The prov!~ "
to section 14(2) is not therefore, a bar to the
grant of this benefit to him."

Shri Bhatia appearing for the appellants contended that
c the aforesaid observation made in the reported case is only b~
way of obiter dicta inasmuch as no arguments were in fact
advanced as to the true interpretation and the scope of
section 14(2) of the Act of 1958 and it appears to have been
assumed in this case by the parties concerned that the benefit
of non-eviction on account of non-payment of rent derived by a
D tenant under the old Act cannot be taken into consideration
under section 14(2) of the Act of 1958.

This contention, in our opinion, has no force. The High
Court of Delhi had construed the provisions of section 14(4\j
as there was a dispute between the parties on the interpreta-
E tion of section 14(2). The construction put by the High Court
on the interpretation of sub-section 2 of section 14 along
with the proviso thereto is fully warranted by the language
of this section.

Shri Bhatia laid much emphasis on the expression "having
F obtained such benefit once". According to him, the expression'!'
is wide enough to include even a benefit derived under the Act
of 1952. It was further contended by the counsel that i f the
legislature intended to put any fetter on the wide expression
used in the proviso it would have clearly said so that the
benefit derived under the Act of 1952 disentitled a tenant
G from getting the benefit of section 14(2) of the Act of 1958.
As a second limb of his contention, Shri Bhatia, further
submitted that under the Act of 1952 a tenant could conmit'!IJ-~:
default times without number and each time he could get the
benefit of non-eviction if he deposited the rent on the first·
day of the hearing. A tenant could tire out the landlord by
H
RAGIUNANDAN SARUP V• PE.AREY LAL [MISRA, J.) 545

. adopting such an attitude. The Legislature, therefore, wanted A
~--to remove the vice of the Act of 1952 and that is why the
proviso to sub-section 2 of section 14 contemplates that the
benefit of non-eviction once derived by the tenant under
sub-section 2 of section 14 will not be given the benefit of
non-eviction for the second time.
B
There is no denying the fact that the Legislature wanted
'l_o remove the vice of the Act of 1952 but to what extent the
fenant will be deprived of the benefit of sub-section 2 of
section 14 will depend upon the expression used by the

- Legislature in the section. The argument advanced by Shri
Bhatia loses sight of certain words of sub-section 2 and of
...Jthe proviso thereto. Sub-section 2 contemplates to give the c
\benefit to a tenant of non-eviction if the tenant makes
ljryment or deposit as required by section 15. Obviously,
therefore, sub-section 2 contemplates that the benefit of
non-eviction under this sub-section can be given only to a
tenant who has made a deposit as required by section 15 of the
Act of 1958., Therefore, the deposit made under section 13(2) D
of the Act of 1952 has been completely excluded by sub-section
2. The proviso to sub-section 2 also puts a bar on deriving
the benefit under this sub-section i.e. sub-section 2 of
'1ction 14, thus if the expressions "deposit under-section 15
in sub-section 2 of section 14" and "such benefit" in the
proviso thereto is given a meaning, there is no escape from E

- the conclusion that no second benefit can pe given to a tenant
if he had already received the benefit under sub-section 2 by
deposit made in accordance with the provisions of section 15
~f the Act of 1958.

Y It was further contended on the strength of the proviso F
to sub-section 2 of section 57 of the Act of 1958, that even
if the deposit was made under section 13(2) of the Act of 1952
during the pendency of the Act of 1958, the Court or the
authority shall have to take into consideration the provisions
of the Act of 1958 and in that view of the matter it can
safely be assumed that the deposit made by the respondents G
during the pendency of the Act of 1958 is a deposit within
•.>..., ~e meaning of section 15 of Act of 1958. Thus argument again
ignores sub-section 2 of section 57. Sub-section 2 is a saving
clause and provides that notwithstanding the repeal of the Act
of 1952, all suits and other proceedings under the said Act
H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19861 2 s.c.R.

A pending at the COllllll!ncement of this Act, before any Court or ,
other authority shall be continued and disposed of :f:tr-~'
accordance with the provisions of the said Act, as if the said
Act had continued in force and this act had not been passed.
In view of this clear saving clause, the deposit made by the
respondents 1111st be taken to be a deposit under section 13(2)
of the Act of 1952 and if the case is covered squarely by
B sub-section 2 of section 57 it is not at all necessary to take
into consideration the other provisions of the Act.

Shri Bhatia further contended that the benefit, either

c
under the Act of 1952 or the Act of 1958, afforded a tenant
the benefit of non-eviction and this benefit was identical in
both these sections 13(2) of the Act of 1952 and 14(2) of th~ .
Act of 1958. Section 13(2) of the old Act and section 14(2J
-
of the new Act, according to learned counsel, form one
scheme, one code and re-enforce each oJ:her and in support ~
this contention he relies on .J.L Steel Ltd. v. lllion of
India, (1969] 2 S.C.R. 481, 497. lie contends that these
D sections are in pari materia and the modification introduced
by section 14(2) and section 15 of the Act of 1958 is only
regarding the mode of deposit. We find it difficult to accept
this contention either. 1bere is marked difference between the
three provisions. Section 15(2) is radically different fra1
the provisions of section 13 of the old Act and tlie
E distinction between the two sections has been clearly made out
by the Delhi High Court in the aforesaid reported decision. If
once we accept the interpretation put forward by the Tribunal
on section 14(2) read with the proviso thereto it is not at
all necessary to enter into the alterntive contentions raise~
-
by Shri Bhatia. If the words of statute are clear, there is no
F question of interpretation. Grammatical construction has beenr
accepted as the golden rule and so construed, the respondents
cannot be deprived of the benefit of section 14(2) merely
because they had obtained similar benefit under sub-section 2
of section 13 of the Act of 1952. We see no reason to differ
from the view taken by the Tribunal as confirmed by the High
G Court.

In the result the appeals must fail. 1bey are accordinglj ~.._
dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, there is no
order as to costs.

H
M.L.A. Appeals dismissed.