Holding

The notice issued by the landlady satisfies the requirements of clause (a) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

Summary

The landlady served a notice on the tenant on 14‑December‑1973 demanding payment of "damages for use and occupation" at a rate equal to the agreed rent, stating that the tenancy had terminated and the tenant had become a statutory tenant. The tenant failed to pay within two months, later sending a money‑order which the landlady refused to accept, and applied to the Controller for eviction under clause (a) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Controller and the Tribunal held the notice valid, interpreting the phrase as synonymous with rent. A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court reversed this view, holding that the notice did not constitute a demand for rent and was therefore invalid. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the notice satisfied the statutory requirement of a demand for arrears of rent, restored the Controller’s and Tribunal’s orders, and remitted the matter to the Controller for further proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether a notice demanding "damages for use and occupation" at a rate equivalent to the agreed rent fulfills the requirement of a demand for arrears of rent under clause (a) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Whether the expression "damages for use and occupation" can be interpreted as synonymous with "rent" for the purpose of invoking eviction powers under the Act.

Legislation cited

Delhi Rent Control Acts. 14(1) proviso (a), s. 14(2)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 106

Subjects

Delhi Rent Control Actevictionnotice of demandarrears of rentdamages for use and occupationstatutory tenantlandlord-tenant disputeinterpretation of statutory terms

Judgment

43 A

SMT. ANAND KAUR
v.
PRITAM LAL
8
January 14, 1.982

[A.D. KO!HAL, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND
R.B. MISRA, JI.]
Delhi R.nt Control Act-Section 14(1). proviso (a) read with provllO to C
114ction 14(2)-rcope of.

) When a tenant has ~either paid DOI'. tendered the whole of the arrears of
rent legally recoverabl~ from him within two months of the date on which the
notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord
proviso (a) to section 14(1) empowers the Controller to make an order for the
recovery of possession of the premises. The proviso to section 14(2) states that D
no tenant shall be entitled to the benefit under the 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 thrie consecutive months.

On 14th December, 1973. the land-lady-appellant issued a notice to the
tenant stating that be had not paid the damages after May 11973 and called upon
him to pay the arrears within two months from the date of notice. The tenant E
remitted the rent to the land-l~dy by money-.order towards the end of February
1974 .but she refused to accept the same.

_,
"-·
_On the land·lady's application the Controller, and the Tribunal in appeal,
held that the notice was valid and that the expression Hdamages for the use and
occupation" meant nothing more nor less than rent. But the High Court on
appeal held that the term "rent" tlnd "damages for use and occupation" could F
' not be taken to be synonymous ter~s and that the notice issued by Ehe land-lady
did not satisfy the requirements of clause (a) of the proviso to section 14(1) of
the Act in that it did not demand rent from the tenant.
'· Allowing the appeal and remitting the case to the Court below

HELD : The notice issued by the land-lady satisfies the requirements of G
clause (a) of the proviso to section 14(1). [46 DJ

The High Court has taken an unnecessarily hypertechnical view of the
con ten ts of the notice which speeificldly stated that on account of the termination
of the tenancy by an earlier notice the tenant had become a statutory tenant and
it was in this context that a claim was made for damages for use and occupation H
at a rate equivalent to the agreed rent. The demand so ma~• ~OQld qot b~
i;oostrued as anything but a demaq<! fQr rent, [46 B.C]
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] 3 s.c.a.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 966 of
1976.

(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
the 6th February, 1976 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No.148
of 1975)
B.·
Vlnoo Bhagat for the Appellant, \-

G. D. Gupta for the Respondent (Not Present)

c The Order of the Court was delivered by

KosHAL, J. The short point arising for determination in this
appeal concerns the validity of a notice served by the landlady-
appellant on the tenant-respondent and purporting to be one issued
in accordance with the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-
D section (I) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter
called the Act), and we may at the very outset reproduce the. rele-
vant provisions of that section :

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

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

(a) that the tenant has neiiher paid nor tendered
the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable
G from him within two months of the date on which a
notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been
served on him by the landlord in the manner provided
in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882;

H 14(2) No order for the recovery of possession of any
premises shall b~ made on the ~rouncj specified in clause
Ai-IAND KAtlR v. Pkl'i'AM LAL (Koshal, J,)

(a) of the proviso to sub-section (I), if the tenant makes A
payment or deposit as required by section 15 :

Provided that no tenant shall be entitled to the 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 B
.( months."

2. The tenant respondent has remained absent and unre-
presented at the hearing and we have had the advantage of being
addressed by Mr. Vinoo Bhagat, learned counsel for the appellant
only. c
3. It was not disputed before the High Court that in an
earlier pr<Jceeding the tenant had taken advantage of the provisions
contained in sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act, that he com-
mitted another default in the payment of rent which covered the
period from 1.6.1973 to 30.11.1973 and that it was then that a D
notice dated 14.12.1973 was served on him. The notice stated:

"Your contractual tenancy in respect of House No.
A-54 (double-storey) Kalkaji, New Delhi-19 had already
been terminated whereafter you are a statutory tenant
liable ~o pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of E
Rs. 1!5/- (Rupees fifteen per month) to me. That you have
not paid the said damages after May, 1973. In case you
do nllt clear the arrears upto date within two months from
the date of this notice, I shall be compelled to issue ins-
truct1ions to my legal adviser to file an application for your
eviction . , ... " F

No attempt to pay the rent was made inspite of the notice
till the end. of February, 1974. Although thereafter rent was
remitted to the landlady through money orders but she refused to
accept the 11ame and made an application to the Controller for G
eviction of the tenant on the sole ground of a second default in the
payment of rent. Both the Controller and the Tribunal in the
appeal held that the notice was a valid one and that the expression
"damages for use and occupation" contained therein meant nothing
more or less than rent. In a second appeal, a learned Single Judge H
differed from the Courts below and was of the opinion that the
word 'rent' and the said expression could not be taken to be
4/i $tlPll!NS COUkT kBPokTS (1982] 3 s.e.11.

A. synonymous and that there was no demand of rent in the notice
in question which did not, therefore, satisfy the requiremepts of the
provisions contained in clause (a) above extracted. It is the
judgment of the learned Single Judge which is assailed in the present
appeal .

. B 4. After. hearing Mr. Vinoo Bhagat, learned counsel for the
/.
appellant, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has
taken an unnecessarily hypertechnical view of the contents of the
notice. It is significant that the notice specifically stated that on
account of the termination of the tenancy by an earlier notice the
tenant had become what is popularly known as a statutory tenant
c and it was in this context that a claim was made for damages .for
use and occupation at a rate equivalent to the agreed rent. We are
of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case the demand so
made could not be construed as anything but a demand for rent.
Consequently the notice mu~t be held to satisfy the requirements of
clause (a) of sub-section (I) of Section 14 of the Act.
D
5. For the reasons stated above, w~ accept the appeaJ, set
aside the impugned judgmeat and restore the orders of the Con-
troller and the Tribunal. The case is remitted for further proceed-
ings to the Controller who shall dispose of it within three months
from the receipt of records from. this Court. No costs.
E
P.B.R. Appeal allowed.