Nawab Khan Vs. Vidya Wanti - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
delhi rent control act - section 14(1)(a)--eviction of the tenant sought on the ground of non payment of rent--addl. kent controller, passed order under section 15(1) of the act directing the tenant to deposit the rent as per order within 1 month. it was further observed that in case the tenant deposit the rent within time the eviction petition will stand dismissed in view of section 14(2) but if he fails to deposit in time the eviction order dammed to have been passed. tenant failed to deposit rent in time--no application for extension of time filed. held is liable to be evicted.;delhi rent control act - section 14(1)(a) and section 148 c.pc.--extension of time--eviction order passed against the tenant for not depositing rent as per order in time--whether executing court can extent time-held (no). - - it was held that as he had failed to comply with the order dated 6th november, 1980 warrants of possession were liable to be issued in respect of the premises. iii 1961 on page 763, in respect of the plea that the court had jurisdiction to extend the time even in execution proceedings and failed to exercise that jurisdiction in not condoning the delay. admittedly, no application was made to the court within one month of the passing of the order of 6th november, 1980. at any rate, no application bad been made to the execution court.charanjit talwar, j.(1) this is a second appeal filed under section 39 of the delhi rent control act challenging the legality of the judgment passed on 19th april, 1983 if the rent control tribunal, new delhi whereby the first appeal of the appellant herein, nawab khan, was dismissed. (2) to appreciate the contention of mr. tikku, learned counsel for the appellant, i may note that the appellant was a tenant in respect of premises in dispute at a monthly rent of p.s. 30.00 . the case before the appellate court was that the property in dispute vested in the government of india and, thereforee, decree in favor of the decree-holder smt. vidya wanti, respondent herein was liable to be set aside in view of section 15 of the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971 (hereinafter called the act). the question whether the said property belonged to the government of india, and thereforee, the decree in favor of smt. vidya wanti was liable to be set aside had also arisen in two civil revisions petitions filed by one manohar lal against this very respondent smt. vidya wanti. those revision petition nos. c.r. no. 27/83 and c r. no. 119/82 were decided by me on october 1, 1985. while negativing the contention of the petitioner in those cases, i held that the decree in favor of the landlady was executable against the tenants. i agreed with the findings that it had not been proved that the property in dispute belonged to the e delhi development authority. (3) in he present appeal also the same view is to be taken. the appellant has been unable to prove by any cogent evidence that the property vested in the government of india. hence, the question whether the appellant can be proceeded against only under the act does not arise for consideration. (4) now reverting to the admitted facts of the case, the landlady had filed a petition under section 14(1)(a) of the delhi rent control act against the appellant on the allegations that he had neither tendered nor paid the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st november, 1977 inspire of notice of demand. the appellant disputed the liability to pay the said arrears of rent. on the pleadings of the parties and after hearing counsel, the court of the additional rent controller passed an order on 14th january, 1980 under section 15(1) of the delhi rent control act, inter-alia, directing : 'i direct the respondent under section 15(1) to deposit entire arrears from 1.12.77 up to date @ rs 30.00 per month plus balance of rs. 120.00 , after adjusting two month's rent within one month from today and to continue to deposit further rent month by month by 15th of each successive month at the same rate.'(5) on 12th february, 1980 i.e. within the time allowed arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st december, 1977 to 30th november, 1979 along with a sum of rs.l20.00 i.e.a total amount of rs. 840.00 was deposited by the tenant. i may note here that in his opening arguments mr. tikku submitted that infact on 12th february, 1980 when the said amount ofrs.840.00 was deposited there was no outstanding rent due from the tenant to the landlady. when pointed out by mr. gupta, learned counsel for the respondent that as per the requirement of section 15(1) of delh rent control act, on 12th february, 1980 the tenant was required to deposit the arrears not only for the month of january, 1980 but also for the month of december, 1979, mr. tikku submitted that his reliance was on section 26 of the rent act under which according to him on 12th february, 1980 rent for the month of january, 1980 had not fallen due. thus on the respondent own showing admittedly rent for december, 1979 had not been deposited. further contention of mr. tikku that under the provisions of section 15(1) his client was not required to deposit the rent for january, 1980 on 12th february, 1980 is entirely misconceived. the courts below were right when they held that arrears of rent were due even after the deposit of rs. 840.00 (6) aftertrial, the court of the third additional rent controller in its final judgment delivered on 6th november, 1980 directed the tenant to pay the rent for two months within one month of the pronouncement of the order. it was further observed, 'in case he complies with this order this eviction petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed in view of section 14(2) of the delhi rent control act. in case he fails to comply with this order, an eviction order in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the premises in question shown in rend in plan ex. aw. 1/6 shall be deemed to have been passed. no order as to costs. file be consigned to record room.' admittedly, the tenant-appellant herein did not deposit the amount within the time allowed. no application was filed within that period for seeking extension of time to deposit the arrears. the conditional decree had thus become executable. the decree-holder (landlady) filed an execution application seeking warrants of possession of the said premises. in reply the judgment debtor who is the appellant herein before me raised a plea that he had deposited the amount on 24th december, 1980 i.e. after the expiry of the time limit. his plea was also that the delay be condoned by the execution court on the ground that the .amount of rent could not be deposited due to strike of the clerks (presumably lawyer's clerks). by an order on 30th march, 1983 the plea of the tenant was rejected. it was held that as he had failed to comply with the order dated 6th november, 1980 warrants of possession were liable to be issued in respect of the premises. accordingly, the warrants of possession were issued. it was against that order that the appeal was filed before the rent control tribunal. the order of the rent control tribunal is the impugned order before me. (7) apart from the plea that the land on which the premises in dispute have been built belongs to the government, the other plea is that it was a fit case where execution court ought to have condoned the delay in deposit of the arrears of rent and ought to have extended the time till 24th december, 1980. it is urged that the finding of the court below that the execution court had no jurisdiction to do so is illegal and is liable to be set aside. mr. tikku relies on mahant ram dass v. ganga dass, supreme court reports vol. iii 1961 on page 763, in respect of the plea that the court had jurisdiction to extend the time even in execution proceedings and failed to exercise that jurisdiction in not condoning the delay. it is submitted that section 148 of the code of civil procedure in terms allows that court to grant such an extension of time. (8) in my view, the reliance is completely misplaced. the order passed by the rent controller on 6th november, 1980 was not an order in terrorem. that was as order passed in a conditional decree. admittedly, no application was made to the court within one month of the passing of the order of 6th november, 1980. at any rate, no application bad been made to the execution court. the execute made in reply to the execution petition that because of some alleged strike of the clerks the amount of arrears of rent could not be deposited was bound to be rejected as being highly improbable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. i further, agree with the court below that the execution court had no jurisdiction to extend the time. the conditional decree passed on 6th november, 1980 was within jurisdiction which was not challenged by the tenant and thus had become final between the partics. (9) there is no merit in this appeal. it is dismissed with costs.