9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Standard Rent 2. Applicability of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 3. Legal Presumption of Postal Money Order Dispatch 4. Deposit of Rent for Three Consecutive Months Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of Standard Rent The appellant, Chawla, contended that the Controller was bound to determine the standard rent of the premises in the proceeding instituted by Sethi, and since the Controller failed to do so, the order in ejectment was illegal. The court clarified that under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the standard rent must be determined by the Controller. Sections 6 and 9 of the Act provide the framework for determining the standard rent, which must be done through an application made within two years from the commencement of the Act or from the date of letting. The court held that the prohibition against recovery of rent in excess of the standard rent applies only from the date on which the standard rent is determined by the Controller and not before that date. The court rejected the argument that the standard rent could be determined as a defense in an ejectment proceeding without adhering to the limitation period prescribed under Section 12 of the Act. 2. Applicability of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Chawla argued that the courts below erred in holding that he could not obtain the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act. Section 14(2) provides that no order for the recovery of possession shall be made if the tenant makes payment or deposits as required by Section 15. However, the court noted that Chawla had previously committed default in payment of rent and had obtained the benefit of Section 14(2) by depositing the due amount in an earlier proceeding. Since Chawla had again defaulted in payment for three consecutive months, he was not entitled to claim the protection of Section 14(2). The court emphasized that the proviso to Section 14(2) is mandatory, and Chawla was not entitled to the benefit due to his previous default. 3. Legal Presumption of Postal Money Order Dispatch Chawla contended that the legal presumption arising from the dispatch of a postal money order for Rs. 320 addressed to Sethi had been ignored by all the courts. The court found that Chawla failed to prove that the money order was duly addressed to Sethi and that Sethi refused to accept it. The only evidence was a postal receipt that did not bear Sethi's residential address. Sethi's testimony that no one had tendered the postal money order to him was believed by the courts. Therefore, this contention was dismissed. 4. Deposit of Rent for Three Consecutive Months Chawla argued that he had made a deposit of rent for three months and if that deposit were taken into account, he was not in arrears for three consecutive months at the date of the initiation of the proceeding. The court noted that this plea was not raised before the Rent Controller or the Rent Control Tribunal and was sought to be urged for the first time before the High Court, which declined to entertain it. The court did not permit counsel to raise this plea as its determination depended on proof of facts that were never proved. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Rent Controller, the Rent Control Tribunal, and the High Court. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming that the Controller's failure to determine the standard rent did not invalidate the ejectment order, and Chawla was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) due to his previous defaults. The legal presumption regarding the postal money order was not substantiated, and the plea concerning the deposit of rent for three months was not entertained.
|
