9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1989 (3) TMI 372 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the High Court has ignored to note that the statutory obligation cast on the Rent Controller as per the proviso attached to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act requiring him to calculate and determine the quantum of arrears of rent even at the first instance has not been complied with? Whether that the application for ejectment was not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 4(c) 5(1) and 6 of the Rules framed under the Act and as such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on both the grounds. Held that - After a careful scrutiny of the Section 13(2)(i) and the first proviso annexed thereto no force in the submissions of the learned counsel that there is any statutory duty cast on the Rent Controller even in the first instance to determine and calculate the arrears of rent and the interest but on the contrary the proviso requires the tenant to pay or tender the actual arrears of rent within 15 days of the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service alongwith the interest to be calculated by the Controller at 8 per cent per annum on such arrears together with such costs of the application if any as may be allowed by the Controller. What the proviso requires is that the Controller has to calculate the interest at 8 per cent per annum on such arrears of rent and determine the costs of the application if any. If the argument of the learned counsel is to be accepted then in every case the Rent Controller has to hold an enquiry at the first instance and determine the arrears of rent even on the first date of hearing which is in the nature of things not possible without any evidence nor is it contemplated under the scheme of the Act.Hence we hold that this argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is misconceived and fallacious. The rules 4(c) 5(1) and 6 are not mandatory but only directory. In that view we see no force in the contention of the learned counsel that the non-mentioning of the amount of arrears of rent due in the application for ejectment has adversely affected the proceedings of this case and as such the application for ejectment is liable to be dismissed on that score. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-payment of rent by the tenant. 2. Entitlement of the landlord to claim enhanced rent. 3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 and related Rules. 4. Calculation and determination of arrears of rent by the Rent Controller. 5. Validity of the application for ejectment based on the non-mention of specific arrears. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-payment of Rent by the Tenant: The respondent, the owner of the tenanted premises, filed a petition for ejectment before the Rent Controller against the tenant on the grounds of non-payment of rent from 1.5.74. The Rent Controller found that the tenant had failed to pay the rent from 1.4.75 and directed the ejectment of the tenant. This order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and subsequently by the High Court, which found that the tenant had not proved the payment of arrears as claimed. The tenant's failure to pay the rent due led to his liability for ejectment under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act. 2. Entitlement of the Landlord to Claim Enhanced Rent: The landlord claimed that under the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, the rent was liable to be increased from Rs.950 to Rs.1142 per month. However, the Rent Controller held that the landlord was only entitled to recover the rent at the agreed rate of Rs.950 per month. The tenant resisted the application, arguing that the landlord was not entitled to claim enhanced rent and no legal notice was served on him for the arrears of rent. 3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements: The tenant argued that the application for ejectment was not maintainable as it did not specify the amount of arrears due, as required by Clause 'C' of Rule 4 and Clause (1) of Rule 5 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1976. The High Court rejected this argument, noting that no such objection was raised at earlier stages and that no prejudice was caused to the tenant due to this non-compliance. 4. Calculation and Determination of Arrears by the Rent Controller: The tenant's counsel argued that the Rent Controller failed to calculate and determine the quantum of arrears of rent as required by the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act. The High Court and the Supreme Court found that there was no statutory duty on the Rent Controller to determine the arrears of rent at the first hearing. The tenant was obligated to calculate and pay the arrears within 15 days of the first hearing. The Courts held that the tenant had not deposited the full and valid rent due, and thus, the deposit was not legally valid. 5. Validity of the Application for Ejectment: The tenant contended that the application for ejectment should be dismissed due to non-compliance with Rule 4(c), which requires specifying the amount of arrears due. The Supreme Court held that the rules were directory, not mandatory, and non-compliance did not invalidate the application. The tenant was aware of the arrears, and no prejudice was caused by the non-mention of the specific amount. The High Court's view that no prejudice was caused was upheld. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenant had not paid the full arrears of rent and that the procedural non-compliance did not invalidate the application for ejectment. The tenant's contentions were found to be without merit, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
