Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment

Kamla Devi v. Vasdev, AIR 1995 SC 985

Kamla Devi (Smt) v. Vasdev, AIR 1995

This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University) and edited by Mr. Sonu Choudhary. If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to niyamskanoon09@gmail.com.


Case Details

PETITIONER                 : KAMLA DEVI

                      Vs.

RESPONDENT               : VASDEV

DATE OF JUDGMENT  : 14/12/1994
BENCH                            : SEN, S.C. (J)
BENCH                            : SEN, S.C. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BHARUCHA S.P. (J)

CITATION                 : 1995 AIR  985   1995 SCC  (1) 356 JT 1995 (1)   142                                                                     1994 SCALE  (5)295

Introduction 

The case of Kamla Devi v. Vasdev 1995 is a significant judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 1995.  This case deals with the interesting issue of whether the rent controller can forgive the delay in payment of arrears or extend the time to pay the rent by considering the facts and circumstances of the case under Section 15(7) of the Rent Control Act.

Facts of the case (Kamla Devi v. Vasdev)

A shop had been rented out by the appellant (Kamla Devi) to the respondent (Vasdev) of which the respondent (Vasdev) failed to the pay rent. Thereafter the appellant (Kamla Devi) sent a demand notice providing two months period to pay the arrears which had also been failed by the respondent (Vasdev). Hence, the appellant filed an eviction petition before the Additional Rent Controller under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 

Case History 

  1. The Additional Rent Controller directed the tenant-respondent (Vasdev), under Section 15(1), to pay the arrears within one month of this Order and subsequent rent by the 15th of each succeeding month. But the respondent again failed to pay the arrears within the given time, therefore the Rent Controller passed an eviction order against the tenant. Aggrieved by the eviction Order, the respondent (Vasdev) appealed before the Tribunal.
  2. The Tribunal directed the Rent Controller to reconsider the issue of whether the controller can condone the delay in the deposit of arrears before deciding whether the appellant deserves to get benefits under Section 14(2).
  3. After reconsidering, the Additional Rent Controller condoned the delay while holding that the respondent (Vasdev) is entitled to get benefits under Section 14(2) of the DRC Act. Now, the appellant appeared before the Tribunal against this Order.
  4. The Tribunal and also the High Court dismissed the application of the landlord-appellant (Kamla Devi). Thereafter, Kamla Devi approached the Supreme Court.

Appellant Contentions

  1. The Landlord has given notice to the respondent to pay the arrears within two months of the notice of demand but the tenant failed to pay the arrears. Thereafter under Section 15(1) the Rent Controller passed a month to pay arrears, has also not followed by the tenant, hence under Section 15(7) it is obligatory to pass an eviction order against the tenant.
  2. The appellant also referred Hem Chand Case in which the bench of two judges of SC held that the Controller has no power to condone the failure of the tenant to pay arrears of rent as required under Section 15(1).

Main Issue

  1. Whether the rent controller has the power to condone the delay or extend the time under Section 15(7) if the tenant fails to comply with the order under Section 15(1).

Ratio Decidendi 

  1. The court said when we observe the language given under Section 15(7) of the DRC Act, 1958 that "If a tenant fails to make payment as required by the section the controller may order that defense against eviction to struck out and proceed with the hearing of the proceeding". It clearly shows that it depends upon the facts of the case and in the discretion of the controller to pass an eviction order against the tenant.
  2. The court relied on the decision of the Shyam Charan Sharma Case. It was decided under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1971 in which the claim of the landlord for eviction of the tenant on failure to pay rent was dismissed. In this case, three judges of the Supreme Court said that the provisions of the Act (MP Accomodation Control Act, 1971) confer the discretion on the court to strike out or not to strike out the defense in case of failure to pay arrears within the period given by the controller. In this case, the court further said that such discretion indicates that the controller has the power to condone the default and extend the time for payment.
  3. In Rama Murti v. Bholenath case, the court held that Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 confers discretion on the controller to strike the defence. Hence, the rent controller can, by legal implication, condone the default on the part of the tenant in making payment.

Decision 

  1. The court said that Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act does not contain a mandatory provision for striking the defence against eviction. 
  2. The exercise of discretion will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
  3. Hence, the court dismissed the appeal while favoring the tenant under Section 15(7). 

Important Legal Provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act

  1. Section 14(1)(a): It empowers the rent controller to order for the recovery of the possession by the landlord if the tenant fails to pay the arrears recoverable within 2 months of the notice served by the landlord.
  2. Section 14(2): It says that the controller can order in favour of the landlord for recovery of possession if the tenant makes payment under Section 15.
  3. Section 15(1): In proceeding under section 14(1)(a), the Controller shall, after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard, make an order directing the tenant to pay the arrears to the landlord within one month of the date and In addition to the overdue rent, the tenant may also be required to pay future rent on time, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. 
  4. Section 15(7): If a tenant fails to make payment as required by the section the controller may order that the defense against eviction to struck out and proceed with the hearing of the proceeding. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more