Date of the Judgment: 24 September 2019
Citation: Dina Nath (D) By Lrs & Anr. vs Subhash Chand Saini & Ors. CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4563 OF 2014
Judges: Arun Mishra, J., M.R. Shah, J., Ajay Rastogi, J. The judgment was authored by Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Can a Rent Controller automatically strike out a tenant’s defense for failing to strictly adhere to rent payment orders? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, clarifying the discretionary powers of Rent Controllers under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This judgment emphasizes that striking out a tenant’s defense is not a routine action but an exceptional measure to be used judiciously.
Case Background
The appellants (tenants) were renting a shop in Delhi for a monthly rent of Rs. 66. The respondents (landlords) filed an eviction petition in November 2007 under Section 14(1)(a)(b)(c) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking possession of the premises. The tenants disputed the claims in their written statement on 7th February 2008. An order under Section 15(1) of the Act was passed on 21st April 2008, directing the tenants to pay rent arrears from 1st November 2007 and continue paying monthly rent by the 15th of each succeeding month.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| November 2007 | Landlords filed an eviction petition. |
| 7th February 2008 | Tenants filed their written statement. |
| 21st April 2008 | Rent Controller ordered tenants to pay arrears from 1st November 2007 and continue monthly payments. |
| 28th April 2009 | Landlords applied to strike out the tenant’s defense for non-compliance with the rent order. |
| 14th September 2009 | Rent Controller struck out the tenant’s defense. |
| 24th May 2010 | Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the tenant’s appeal. |
| 10th May 2011 | High Court of Delhi dismissed the tenant’s appeal. |
| 24th September 2019 | Supreme Court set aside the High Court order. |
Course of Proceedings
The Rent Controller allowed the landlord’s application on 14th September 2009 and struck off the tenant’s defense for non-compliance with the order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the tenant’s appeal on 24th May 2010. Subsequently, the High Court of Delhi also dismissed the tenant’s appeal on 10th May 2011, upholding the Rent Controller’s order. The tenants then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Specifically, Section 15(7) states:
“If a tenant fails to make payment or deposit as required by this section, the Controller may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and proceed with the hearing of the application.”
This provision is contrasted with Section 13(5) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, which stated:
“…the court shall order the defence against ejectment to be struck off…”
The key difference is the shift from “shall” to “may,” indicating that the Rent Controller’s power to strike out a defense is discretionary, not mandatory, under the 1958 Act.
Arguments
Tenants’ Submissions:
- The tenants argued that they had deposited the arrears of rent as directed by the Rent Controller’s order dated 21st April 2008.
- They also contended that they had paid an additional ten months’ rent in advance, which should have been adjusted against future rent.
- The tenants asserted that they had not defaulted on rent payments, as the advance payment covered the period until February 2009, and subsequent deposits covered the rent until August 2009.
- They argued that the Rent Controller should have considered the advance payment and subsequent deposits before striking out their defense.
Landlords’ Submissions:
- The landlords contended that the tenants failed to comply with the order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, by not paying rent on time.
- They argued that the Rent Controller was justified in striking out the tenant’s defense due to non-compliance.
Submissions Table
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Tenants | Compliance with Rent Order |
|
| Landlords | Non-Compliance with Rent Order |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue:
- Whether the power vested with the Rent Controller under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is discretionary and has been judiciously exercised in the facts of the instant case in striking out the defence of the appellants (tenants) in the eviction proceedings?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Finding | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the power under Section 15(7) is discretionary and was judiciously exercised? | No, the power was not judiciously exercised. | The tenants had paid the arrears and an additional ten months’ advance rent. The Rent Controller did not consider these facts. The power under Section 15(7) is discretionary and should not be used as a “booby trap” to evict tenants. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon:
| Authority | Court | Legal Point | How the authority was considered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ashoka Marketing Ltd. vs. Punjab National Bank, 1990 (4) SCC 406 | Supreme Court of India | Purpose of Rent Control Act | The Court referred to this case to highlight that the purpose of the Rent Control Act is to protect tenants against eviction. |
| Miss. Santosh Mehta vs. Om Prakash, 1980 (3) SCC 610 | Supreme Court of India | Discretionary power under Section 15(7) | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the power to strike out a tenant’s defense is exceptional and should only be exercised when there is a “mood of defiance” or “gross negligence” on the part of the tenant. |
| Smt. Kamla Devi vs. Shri Vasudev, 1995 (1) SCC 356 | Supreme Court of India | Discretionary power under Section 15(7) | The Court cited this case to reiterate that the Rent Controller’s power to strike out a defense is discretionary and not mandatory. |
| M/s. Jain Motor Car Co. vs. Smt. Swayam Prabha Jain, 1996 (3) SCC 55 | Supreme Court of India | Exercise of power under Section 15(7) | The Court noted that this case dealt with the facts and circumstances of that particular case in which the power was found to have been rightly exercised but did not disturb the legal parameters regulating the exercise of the power. |
| Aero Traders (P) Ltd. vs. Ravinder Kumar Suri, 2004 (8) SCC 307 | Supreme Court of India | Interpretation of Section 15(7) | The Court referred to this case for the interpretation of Section 15(7) of the Act, 1958. |
| Amrit Lal vs. Shiv Narain Gupta, 2010 (15) SCC 510 | Supreme Court of India | Discretionary power under Section 15(7) | The Court relied on this case to state that every violation under Section 15(1) of the Act, 1958 will not ipso facto lead to the striking out the defence of a tenant. The discretion vested with the Controller under Section 15(7) of Act, 1958 has to be exercised judiciously. |
Legal Provisions Considered:
| Provision | Statute | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Section 15(7) | Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 | Allows the Rent Controller to strike out a tenant’s defense if they fail to make payments as required. |
| Section 15(1) | Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 | Deals with the order of payment of rent to be passed by the Rent Controller. |
| Section 13(5) | Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 | Mandated the court to strike out the tenant’s defense for non-payment of rent. |
| Section 14(1)(a)(b)(c) and (j) | Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 | Grounds for eviction of a tenant. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Tenants | Compliance with Rent Order | The Court agreed that the tenants had complied with the order by paying arrears and an additional ten months’ advance rent. The Court held that the advance rent should have been adjusted against future rent. |
| Landlords | Non-Compliance with Rent Order | The Court rejected the landlord’s submission, holding that the tenants were not in contumacious default, and the Rent Controller’s decision to strike out the defense was not justified. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Ashoka Marketing Ltd. vs. Punjab National Bank [1990 (4) SCC 406]: The Court used this case to emphasize the protective nature of the Rent Control Act for tenants.
- Miss. Santosh Mehta vs. Om Prakash [1980 (3) SCC 610]: The Court reiterated that striking out a defense is an exceptional step, not a routine one, and should only be done in cases of “mood of defiance” or “gross negligence.”
- Smt. Kamla Devi vs. Shri Vasudev [1995 (1) SCC 356]: The Court reaffirmed that the power to strike out a defense is discretionary, not mandatory.
- M/s. Jain Motor Car Co. vs. Smt. Swayam Prabha Jain [1996 (3) SCC 55]: The Court noted that this case did not disturb the legal parameters regulating the exercise of the power.
- Aero Traders (P) Ltd. vs. Ravinder Kumar Suri [2004 (8) SCC 307]: The Court referred to this case for the interpretation of Section 15(7) of the Act, 1958.
- Amrit Lal vs. Shiv Narain Gupta [2010 (15) SCC 510]: The Court relied on this case to state that every violation under Section 15(1) of the Act, 1958 will not ipso facto lead to the striking out the defence of a tenant. The discretion vested with the Controller under Section 15(7) of Act, 1958 has to be exercised judiciously.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court emphasized that the power under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is discretionary and not mandatory. The Court noted that the tenants had paid the arrears and an additional ten months’ rent in advance. The Court also observed that the Rent Controller had not considered these facts while striking out the defense. The Court was of the view that the Rent Controller should have exercised his discretion judiciously, and the power should not be used as a “booby trap” to evict tenants. The Court also highlighted that striking out a defense is an exceptional step and not a routine one.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Discretionary nature of power under Section 15(7) | 30% |
| Payment of arrears and advance rent by tenants | 40% |
| Non-consideration of facts by the Rent Controller | 20% |
| Striking out defense as an exceptional step | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case (60%), particularly the tenants’ payment of arrears and advance rent, than by purely legal considerations (40%).
Logical Reasoning:
The Court held that the Rent Controller did not exercise his discretion judiciously. The Court stated that the tenants had paid the arrears and an additional ten months’ rent in advance, which should have been adjusted against future rent. The Court observed that the Rent Controller had not considered these facts while striking out the defense. The Court also emphasized that striking out a defense is an exceptional step and not a routine one. The Court quoted from the case of Miss. Santosh Mehta vs. Om Prakash:
“…if a tenant fails or refuses to pay or deposit rent and the court discerns a mood of defiance or gross neglect, the tenant may forfeit his right to be heard in defence. The last resort cannot be converted into the first resort; a punitive direction of court cannot be used as a booby trap to get the tenant out.”
The Court also stated:
“It is only a wilful failure or deliberate default or volitional of non-performance that can call for the exercise of the extraordinary power vested in the Court.”
“…the power under Section 15(7) of Act, 1958 being an exception to be exercised with due care and circumspection.”
The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the tenant’s defense.
Key Takeaways
- The power of the Rent Controller under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, to strike out a tenant’s defense is discretionary, not mandatory.
- A mere failure to pay rent on time is not sufficient to justify striking out a defense. There must be a “mood of defiance” or “gross negligence” on the part of the tenant.
- Rent Controllers must consider all facts and circumstances, including advance payments and adjustments, before striking out a tenant’s defense.
- Striking out a tenant’s defense is an exceptional step and should not be used as a “booby trap” to evict tenants.
- This judgment protects tenants from arbitrary eviction and ensures that the Rent Controller’s powers are exercised judiciously.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Rent Controller/Competent Authority to proceed with the matter and decide the pending eviction application expeditiously on merits, but in no case later than one year, in accordance with law.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power of the Rent Controller under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is discretionary and not mandatory. This judgment clarifies that the Rent Controller must exercise this power judiciously, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, and not use it as a “booby trap” to evict tenants. This changes the previous position where a mere failure to pay rent could lead to the striking out of the tenant’s defense.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dina Nath vs. Subhash Chand Saini clarifies that the Rent Controller’s power to strike out a tenant’s defense under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is discretionary and not mandatory. The Court emphasized that this power should be exercised judiciously, considering all facts and circumstances, and not as a routine measure. The judgment protects tenants from arbitrary eviction and ensures that the Rent Controller’s powers are used fairly, with due care and circumspection.
Category
- Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
- Section 15, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
- Section 15(7), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
- Rent Controller
- Eviction
- Tenant Rights
- Discretionary Power
- Rent Control Law
- Rent Payment
- Eviction Proceedings
- Tenant Protection
FAQ
Q: What is the main issue in the Dina Nath vs. Subhash Chand Saini case?
A: The main issue was whether the Rent Controller’s power to strike out a tenant’s defense for non-payment of rent under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is mandatory or discretionary.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about the Rent Controller’s power?
A: The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller’s power under Section 15(7) is discretionary, not mandatory. This means the Rent Controller must consider all facts and circumstances before striking out a tenant’s defense.
Q: What does this mean for tenants in Delhi?
A: This means that tenants cannot be evicted automatically for a minor delay or technicality in rent payment. The Rent Controller must consider all factors, including advance payments, before striking out a defense.
Q: What should a tenant do if they receive an order under Section 15(1)?
A: A tenant should make sure to pay the arrears of rent as directed in the order. If possible, they should also pay any excess amount as advance rent. They should keep all the records of payment and approach the Rent Controller if there is any issue.
Q: Can a landlord still evict a tenant for non-payment of rent?
A: Yes, a landlord can still evict a tenant for non-payment of rent, but the Rent Controller must exercise their discretionary power judiciously, considering all circumstances. The tenant must be in deliberate default or show gross negligence in paying the rent.