9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Compliance with order under Section 15(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Discretionary power of Rent Controller under Section 15(7) of the Act - Willful default and false plea by the tenant - Exercise of judicial discretion in striking off the tenant's defense Compliance with order under Section 15(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: The case involved a tenant of a commercial premises in New Delhi who was in arrears of rent. The Rent Controller had directed the tenant to pay the arrears and future rent, but the tenant failed to comply. The tenant claimed to have sent rent by cheques, but the landlord disputed receiving them. The Rent Controller found the tenant had not paid or deposited the rent as ordered, leading to the striking off of the defense. Discretionary power of Rent Controller under Section 15(7) of the Act: The Rent Control Tribunal, while confirming the non-payment of rent by the tenant, found the tenant's actions not bona fide. Despite this, the Tribunal exercised discretion and directed the tenant to deposit arrears within a specified time. However, the High Court, in a writ petition by the landlord, set aside the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the tenant's willful default and false claims, leading to the restoration of the Rent Controller's decision. Willful default and false plea by the tenant: The tenant attempted to show compliance by claiming to have sent rent through cheques, but failed to provide evidence. The Rent Controller and the High Court both found the tenant's plea false and contumacious, indicating willful default. The High Court concluded that the tenant's actions did not warrant any leniency due to the false claims made. Exercise of judicial discretion in striking off the tenant's defense: The Court examined the concept of judicial discretion, emphasizing the need for a fair and just determination based on the circumstances of the case. In this instance, the tenant's false claims, willful default, and prolonged arrears left no grounds for the Rent Controller or the Tribunal to exercise discretion in the tenant's favor. The High Court's decision to uphold the Rent Controller's order was deemed justified. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision to restore the Rent Controller's order. The tenant's willful default, false claims, and lack of compliance with the Rent Controller's directive led to the striking off of the defense. The Court quantified costs at Rs. 10,000, emphasizing the importance of judicial discretion guided by fairness and legal principles.
|
