9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the eviction order. 2. Jurisdiction of the Rent Control Tribunal to grant stay and impose conditions. 3. Determination of tenancy termination date. 4. Tenant's liability to pay rent or compensation post-eviction order. 5. Applicability of the doctrine of merger in eviction cases. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Eviction Order: The appellant initiated eviction proceedings against the respondent under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, alleging illegal subletting. The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, found the grounds for eviction valid and ordered the respondent's eviction. The Rent Control Tribunal stayed the eviction on the condition that the respondent deposits Rs. 15,000 per month in addition to the contractual rent. The High Court set aside this condition, leading to the present appeal. 2. Jurisdiction of the Rent Control Tribunal to Grant Stay and Impose Conditions: The Rent Control Tribunal has the power to grant stay under Section 38 of the Act, which confers all powers of a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code allows the appellate court to impose conditions for stay, including security for due performance of the decree. The Supreme Court upheld that the Tribunal acted within its discretionary jurisdiction by imposing the condition of Rs. 15,000 per month to compensate the landlord during the appeal. 3. Determination of Tenancy Termination Date: The Court examined when tenancy terminates under rent control legislation. Under the Delhi Rent Control Act, the tenancy terminates with the passing of the eviction decree, not merely by the termination notice under general law. The tenant becomes an unauthorized occupant from the date of the eviction order, despite any pending appeals. 4. Tenant's Liability to Pay Rent or Compensation Post-Eviction Order: The Court held that once an eviction order is passed, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at a rate the landlord could earn if the premises were vacated. This rate is not bound by the contractual rent. The Tribunal's condition of Rs. 15,000 per month was justified given the substantial increase in property value and rent rates since the tenancy commenced in 1944. 5. Applicability of the Doctrine of Merger in Eviction Cases: The doctrine of merger does not postpone the date of tenancy termination. The tenancy is deemed terminated from the date of the initial eviction order, and subsequent affirmations by higher courts do not alter this date. The tenant remains liable for compensation from the date of the original eviction order. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the Tribunal's order and setting aside the High Court's decision. The tenant was ordered to deposit the arrears within six weeks. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's condition was reasonable and necessary to compensate the landlord for the delay in execution due to the appeal.
|
