Ajit Kumar Vs. Surinder Kumar and Sons

Ajit Kumar vs Surinder Kumar and Sons

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 21, 1998

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/705349

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/705349
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: C.M. Nayar, J.
Decided On: Jul 21, 1998
Case Number: C.M.(M) 475 and 477/96 and C.M. Nos. 2201 and 2203/96
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 15(1) & 15(4)--Deposit of arrears of rent--Disputed ownership--The Rent Controller has jurisdiction to direct the tenant to deposit the amount with it which shall be payable after the determination of status of the party. - LABOUR & SERVICES Disability Pension: [Vikramajit ...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Acts & sections: Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 15(1) and 15(4)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ajit Kumar

Advocate S.S. Gautam, Adv

Respondent

Surinder Kumar and Sons

Advocate J.N. Verma, Adv. for Respondent No. 1

Legal References

Acts: Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 15(1) and 15(4)
Reported In: 74(1998)DLT522; 1998(46)DRJ535

Excerpt

.....service would not justify and sustain a claim for disability pension. this is so regardless f whether the injury or death has occurred at the place of posting or during working hours. this is because attributability to military service is a factor which is required to be established. - 1. the present petitions are directed against the order dated 24th august, 1995 passed by the additional rent controller, delhi as well as the appellate order dated 26th july, 1996 passed by the rent control tribunal, delhi. the rent controller refused to pass orders under the provisions of section 15(1) as well as 15(4) of the delhi rent control act (hereinafter referred to as the act). the learned judge held that there was a question of disputed rights on the basis of the wills which cannot be decided at that stage as it is not clear as to who has the right to recover the rent and who is the landlord of the premises in question and unless that point is settled by a competent court no order can be passed under the provisions of section 15(4) of the act. the rent control tribunal upheld the order passed by the additional rent controller and came to the conclusion that till the trial court adjudicated upon the rights of the parties no order can be passed under the provisions of section 15(1) as well as under section 15(4) of the act. 2. the admitted case is that there are certain disputes which require consideration between the petitioner as well as the other persons who claim themselves to be the landlords of the premises. thereforee, it is contended that no order can be passed under the provisions of section 15(1) as well as under section 15(4) of the act. admittedly the learned additional rent controller as well as the rent control tribunal are quite correct in not passing any orders under the provisions of section 15(1) of the act as it cannot be said at this stage with certainty as to who is the landlord of the premises to whom the rent is payable in accordance with..........this stage with certainty as to who is the landlord of the premises to whom the rent is payable in accordance with law. however, there is no justification in not passing an order under the provisions of section 15(4) which may be reproduced as follows:-'15(4) if, in any proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), there is any dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the controller may direct the tenant to deposit with the controller the amount payable by him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), as the case may be, and in such a case, no person shall be entitled to withdraw the amount in deposit until the controller decides the dispute and makes an order for payment of the same.'3. the above provision clearly specifies that if there is any dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the controller may direct the tenant to deposit with the controller the amount payable by such a tenant in the manner as provided in the above said provision. the respondent-tenant shall, thereforee, deposit the rent with the controller in terms of the provisions of section 15(4) which shall not be withdrawn by the petitioner or any of the contesting persons alleging themselves to be entitled to receive the same as landlord or landlords as the case may be till the controversy between them is finally adjudicated and settled. the parties shall take necessary steps to bring all the persons before the court which is adjudicating the rights between them so that effective decision is rendered to determine the status of each such party as a landlord to whom rent shall be payable. the arrears of rent shall be deposited within a period of six weeks and the respondents shall continue to deposit the same on the tenth day of each succeeding month. the petitions are disposed of in the above terms.4. let copy of the order be given dusty to counsel for the parties.

Full Judgment

C.M, Nayar, J.

1. The present petitions are directed against the Order dated 24th August, 1995 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi as well as the Appellate Order dated 26th July, 1996 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The Rent Controller refused to pass orders under the provisions of Section 15(1) as well as 15(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Judge held that there was a question of disputed rights on the basis of the Wills which cannot be decided at that stage as it is not clear as to who has the right to recover the rent and who is the landlord of the premises in question and unless that point is settled by a competent court no order can be passed under the provisions of Section 15(4) of the Act. The Rent Control Tribunal upheld the Order passed by the Additional Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that till the trial court adjudicated upon the rights of the parties no order can be passed under the provisions of Section 15(1) as well as under Section 15(4) of the Act.

2. The admitted case is that there are certain disputes which require consideration between the petitioner as well as the other persons who claim themselves to be the landlords of the premises. It is also stated by learned counsel for the respondent that some of these persons have not even joined these proceedings. thereforee, it is contended that no order can be passed under the provisions of Section 15(1) as well as under Section 15(4) of the Act. Admittedly the learned Additional Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal are quite correct in not passing any orders under the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act as it cannot be said at this stage with certainty as to who is the landlord of the premises to whom the rent is payable in accordance with law. However, there is no justification in not passing an Order under the provisions of Section 15(4) which may be reproduced as follows:-

'15(4) If, in any proceeding referred to in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), there is any dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the Controller may direct the tenant to deposit with the Controller the amount payable by him under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3), as the case may be, and in such a case, no person shall be entitled to withdraw the amount in deposit until the Controller decides the dispute and makes an order for payment of the same.'

3. The above provision clearly specifies that if there is any dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the Controller may direct the tenant to deposit with the Controller the amount payable by such a tenant in the manner as provided in the above said provision. The respondent-tenant shall, thereforee, deposit the rent with the Controller in terms of the provisions of Section 15(4) which shall not be withdrawn by the petitioner or any of the contesting persons alleging themselves to be entitled to receive the same as landlord or landlords as the case may be till the controversy between them is finally adjudicated and settled. The parties shall take necessary steps to bring all the persons before the Court which is adjudicating the rights between them so that effective decision is rendered to determine the status of each such party as a landlord to whom rent shall be payable. The arrears of rent shall be deposited within a period of six weeks and the respondents shall continue to deposit the same on the tenth day of each succeeding month. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

4. Let copy of the Order be given dusty to counsel for the parties.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1998 Same Parties Ajit Kumar vs Surinder Kumar and Sons Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge C.M. Nayar, J. Acts & Sections Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 15(1) and 15(4)

Tenancy