Holding

The Supreme Court held that the eviction order based on non‑payment of future rent under s.15(1) must be upheld and the appeal dismissed, as remitting the case would be unfair and inequitable given the passage of time and the rights of the successor landlords.

Summary

Subhash Mehta, a tenant, occupied a residential premises under a lease from Dr. S.P. Choudhary. After being ordered by the Rent Controller under s.15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act to pay arrears and future rent by the 15th of each month, Mehta delayed future rent payments, leading the Controller to strike off his defence. The Rent Appellate Tribunal set aside the strike‑off, but the Additional Rent Controller later ordered eviction solely on the ground of delayed future rent, rejecting other grounds such as sub‑letting and conversion. Mehta appealed, invoking Hem Chand and Ram Murti decisions that s.15(7) allows the Controller discretion to condone delays, while the landlord’s widow and daughter (successor landlords) opposed the appeal. The Supreme Court, considering the unfairness and inequity of remitting the case after eighteen years and the rights of the successor landlords, dismissed the appeal, upheld the eviction order, and granted Mehta time to vacate the premises.

Issues considered

Whether s.15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act confers discretion on the Rent Controller to condone delayed future rent and refrain from striking off the tenant's defence, thereby invalidating the eviction order.
Whether the successor landlords can raise other grounds of eviction after the original order was based solely on delayed future rent and after a long lapse of time.
Whether the Supreme Court should remit the matter for fresh adjudication of the other grounds or uphold the existing eviction order.

Legislation cited

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 14(2), s. 15(1), s. 15(7)

Subjects

evictionrent controlDelhi Rent Control Actsection 15defence striking offlandlord successiondiscretiondelay in rent payment

Judgment

A
SUBHASH MEHTA ~
v.
DR. S.P. CHOUDHARY (DEAD) BY LRS.

FEBRUARY 20, 1990

B [RANGANATH MISRA, MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND '-.)--.
S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.]

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: S. 15(1)-Rigour of-Eviction
sustained on facts of the case.

In the proceedings for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act,
c 1958 for arrears of rent, subletting, conversion of user from residential
to commercial and bona fide need, the appellant-tenant committed f.-
breach of the Controller's directions under s. 15(1) of the Act in the
matter of payment of monthly rent. Consequently, his defence was
struck off and the suit decreed on the sole ground of delayed payment of
D future rent. All the other grounds were rejected.

The tenant assailed the order before the Rent Control Tribunal
relying on Hem Chand v, Delhi Cloth Mills, [1977] 2 SCR 440 on the ~-
rigour of s. 15(1) of the Act. The Tribunal found that there was no
infirmity in the order. The High Court maintained the ejectment.
E
In the appeal by special leave, it was contended for the appellant -
on the strength of the decision in Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath, [1984] 3 ~
SCC 111 that s. 15(7) of the Act confers a discretion on the Rent Con-
!roller not to strike off the defence of the tenant and consequently the delay
by him in making deposit of future rent should have been excused, and ~
F that ·since no cross appeals were filed by the landlord against the rejec-
tion of other grounds in the court of the Rent Control Tribunal or in the
High Court nor those grounds were pressed in these two forums by the
landlord, those grounds were no more available to him. The landlord
died during the pendency of the appeal and his widow and divorced
daughter-respondent succeeded to him :;s landlords. It was contended
G for them that the tenant was a rich and well connected industrialist
deserving no protection of the rent laws. ~
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,

HELD: l. If the appeals were to be allowed by releasing and relax-
H ing the rigour of the order of evktion, the matter then would have to be

506
SUBHASH MEHTA v. S.P. CHOUDHARY [PUNCHHI, J.] 507

remitted back at an appropriate stage where the successor landlords
could conveniently have the other grounds of eviction adjudicated A
upon, by overruling the objection that the landlord could have filed an
appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal and the High Court seeking
eviction of the tenant on grounds other than the ground on which the
eviction was ordered. [SllB-C] ·

2. The successor landlords are two ladies, one a widow and the
other a divorcee, brought in the fray by operation of law. Remitting the
case back would not only be unfair and unreasonable but time consum-
ing and inequitous as well to them. Since almost eighteen years have
passed by there should be an end to the dispute. This course is in the
interest of all concerned as well as the State. Instead of putting the
parties to a fresh bout of litigation the order of eviction should, there- c
fore, be sustained. [SllC-E]

3. The appellant is granted time ending ou March 31, 1991 for
vacating the premises subject to his giving an undertaking for vacation
on or before the said date and payment of rent to the landlords. [SllE-F] b
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 355 of
--( 1981.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.1980 of the Delhi High
Court in S.A.0. No. 241of1979. E

G.L. Sanghi and S.L. Aneja for the Appeliant.

K. Parasaran, Gopal Subramanium, Arvind Verma and Mukul
•. MudgalfortheRespondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PUNCHHI, J. For the view we take in this appeal by special
leave and leaning as we would be on our discretionary power under
Article 136 of the Constitution, no elaborate details are necessary of
the facts involved therein and for its disposal by a brief order. tJ

The appellant, Subhash Mehta, more than two decades ago
obtained a residential lease of the first floor in premises bearing No.
D"32, South Extension, Part II, New Delhi from Dr. S.P. Choudhary
(now dead) the landlord who was himself residing on the ground floor
thereof. The settled rent was Rs.800 per mensem. The landlord on H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

A November 27, 1972 served a notice on the tenant demanding arrears of
rent from September 1, 1972 onwards. The demand having not been
met lie
instituted an eviction petition before the Rent Controller,
Delhi on March 13, 1973 on grounds of non-payment of rent as also on
other grounds. On June 1, 1973 the Rent Controller passed an order
under section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter
B referred to as the 'Act') directing the tenant to deposit arrears of rent
within one month from the date of the order and further to pay month
to month rent by the 15th of every calendar month. The appellant,
within the period allowed, deposited Rs.10,000 to cover arrears of rent
as well as to cover future rent uptill September 15, 1973. Thereafter
neither on October 15, 1973 nor on November 15, 1973, did the tenant
C deposit monthly rent as required by the aforesaid order of the Rent
Controller. He was alleged to have defaulted on that count. Yet on
December 1, 1973 he made a deposit of Rs.2,800 partly covering the
default of the previous period. The landlord took objection to the late
deposit and after much debate the Rent Controller struck off the
defence of the appellant. The Rent Appellate Tribunal, Delhi set aside
D the order of the Rent Controller striking out the defence of the tenant
on appeal by the tenant and remitted the case back to the Rent Con-
troller for further proceedings. Second appeal to ·the High Court of
Delhi by the landlord was dismissed.

The Additional Rent Controller who became seisin of the matter
E on remand went into all the grounds as originally raised in the eviction
petition; the other grounds, besides the tenant being in arrears of rent,
being sub-letting, conversion of the user of premises from residential
to commercial, the tenant having acquired vacant possession of a resi-
dential house in M-18, Green ParkExtension,·,New Delhi and for bona
fide requirement of the daughter of the landlord who being a student
F of M.B.B.S. was expected to set up medical practice. The Additional
Rent Controller by his order dated December 12, 1978 ordered evic-
tion of the tenant on the sole ground of non-payment of future rent in
terms of his order passed under section 15(1) of the Act, granting the
tenant two months' time to vacate the premises. The other grounds of
eviction were rejected.
G
The tenant's appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal centered ...... •
round the sole question of delayed payment of arrears of rent and of
the scope and rigour of section 15( 1) of the Act. In assailing the order
of the Additional Rent Controller, reliance was placed by the tenant
on a judgment of this Court in Hem Chand v. Delhi Cloth Mills, I1977]
H 2 SCR 440 to contend that even if the tenant had not strictly complied
.)

SUBHASH MEHTA v. S.P. CHOUDHARY [PUNCHHI, J.] 509

the terms of the oraer maae under section 15(1) of the Act in as much
A
as depositing future rent late it was not imperative in all events of the
defence of the tenant being struck off and a fair amount of discretion
had been left with the Rent Controller under section 15(7) which
should have been exercised in his favour and before his defence was to
be struck off the Rent Controller had to come to the view that his
conduct was wilful or contumacious in disobeying the order made B
under section 15(1) of the Act, and which in the instant case he had
' failed to record. Even being aware of these principles the Rent Con-
trol Tribunal on August 18, 1979 dismissed the appeal observing that
no infirmity in the order of the Additional Rent Controller could be
found. On the same lines and reasoning second appeal of the tenant
was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi on October 27, 1980 keeping
maintained the ejectment of the tenant for non-compliance of the c
brder made under section 15(1) of the Act. This has led to the instant
appeal on the grant of special leave.

The landlord Dr. S.P. Choudhary as hinted earlier died in the
year 1981 during the pendency of this appeal leaving behind a widow D
and a daughter; the latter now being a divorcee rearing a minor son.
This is the uncontroverted assertionof the successor-landlords. The
eviction order in their favour has been assailed by Mr. Sanghi, learned
counsel for the tenant-appellant on the strength of the decision of this
Court in Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath and Another, [1984) 3 SCC 111
stressing the point that the words 'as required by section 15( 1) of the E
Act' occurring in sub-section (7) of section 15 must be construed in a
reasonable manner and thatthe said provision confers a ~ide discre-
tion on the Rent Controller not to strike off the defence of the tenant·
which indicates that defences could still be open to the tenant under
i I.I the Act to claim plain protection under section 14(2) thereof. In that
case this Court ruled that the Rent Controller necessarily by legal F
implication has power to condone the default on the part of the tenant
for deposit of future rent or to extend time for such deposit. On the
said plea advanced on behalf of the tenant the result sought to be
achieved is that the delay in making deposit of future rent be excused
saving him from eviction. The tenant had before the Rent Controller
while explaining cause for late deposit of future rent put up the plea G
that the counsel present at the time of the passing of the order under
section 15(1) in place of his engaged counsel had only intimated to him
about the payment of arrears of rent and not about the deposit of
future rent by the 15th_of every· calendar month. On that basis the
order of eviction was sought to be upset by accepting such plea of the
tenant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the successor-landlords H
I
i

510 3UPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] I S.C.R.

tactically took shelter behind the other grounds of eviction which were
A rejected by the Additional Rent Controller and besides raising them
vehemently before us projected that in the facts and circumstances of
this case and the subsequent events which have come by, this Court
should refrain from interfering in the matter under Article L16 of .the •
Constitution. On such stance adopted it is plain that the ground on
B which eviction has been maintained before the Tribunal and the High
Court concurrently the successor-landlords seemingly had an uphill
task to have it maintained in view of Ram Murti's case (supra). Yet,
•

-
without conceding on that score other grounds of eviction were pres-
sed despite opposition by learned counsel for the tenant that these
grounds were neither pressed in the court of the Rent Control Tribunal
nor in the High Court while supporting the order of evictjon and no
C cross appeals in these two forums were filed by the landlord, which if
serious he. legitimately could. It is true that the Tribunal and the High
Court are both silent on the point .
~- ,
. The order of the Additional Rent Controller suggests that the
D tenant is an industrialist. His finding is that within the years 1971 to
1974 he was active in incorporating three companies and that he was a
proprietor of M/s. Globe Marketing and Management Limited, a
Director of M/s. Sports Equipment Private Limited and again a
Director in M/s. Indian Consultants Private Limited. His further find-
ing is that while living in the demised premises he had floated these
E companies and later taken in other directors. In so far as the latter two
companies were concerned, this act of the tenant was not sub-letting,
assigning or parting with the possession of the disputed premises as
held by the Rent Controller. Sequelly the finding further recorded was
that there was no misuser of the disputed premises inasmuch as the
respective offices run by the companies therein had caused no damage
F to the premises. With regard to the fact that the tenant had acquired
another premises at M-18, Green Park Extension, New Delhi the Rent
Controller took the view that factually the father of the tenant had
acquired the same and the tenant could not live in that premises with
his father as a matter of right. Lastly with regard to the bona fide
requirement of the landlord the Rent Controller took the view that the
G landlord's family comprising of himself, his wife and daughter had
sufficient accommodation in their possession even though his daughter
had to establish practice as a doctor. The additional plea of the
successor-landlords as given out in their counter-affidavits now is that
the telephone connections standing in the name of afore-referred three
companies, with which the tenant is intimately connected, are at the·
H demised premises as per the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Directory
SUBHASH MEHTA v. S.P. CHOUDHARY [PUNCHHI. J.[ 511

and that the tenant is a rich and well-connected industrialist deserving A
no protection of the rent laws, misplacedly sought by him.

We have pondered over the matter and have weighed every
aspect of the case. The facts and circumstances now emerging are that
the successor-landlords are two ladies; one a widow and the other a
B
divorcee. If we were to allow the appeal by releasing and relaxing the
rigour of the order of eviction relying on Ram Murti's case, we
unhesitatingly then would take the step to have the matter remitted
back at an appropriate stage where the successor-landlords could con-
veniently have the other grounds of eviction adjudicated upon and
overrule the objection that the landlord could have filed an appeal
before the Rent Appellate Tribunal and the High Court seeking evic- c
tion of the tenant on grounds other than the ground on which the
eviction was ordered. This course, however, appears to us to be not
only unfair and unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of this
case but time consuming and inequitous as well to the successor-
landlords who, as said before, are two ladies brought in the fray by
operation of law. Now since almost eighteen years have passed by, we D
feel there should be an end to the dispute and this course is in the
interest of all concerned as well as the State. Instead of putting the
parties to a fresh bout of litigation we would in these circumstances
prefer and opt tO let remain the order of eviction sustained however on
slender ground, and consequently order dismissal of this appeal but
without any order as to costs. Still we do not wish to dislocate the E
appellant abruptly, concerned as we are for him also, and for that
purpose grant him sufficient time ending on March 31, 1991 for vacat-
ing the premises subject to his giving an undertaking before this Court
for vacation on or before the said date but on payment of rent to the
landlords as has fallen due for the period uptill and by March 31, 1990
and future monthly rent by the tenth of each calendar month. Let the F
undertaking be filed by March 10, 1990 in the Registry in the usual
manner.

P.S.S. Appeal dismissed.