2005 (8) TMI 746 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Default in payment of rent.
2. Validity of rent deposit under the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934.
3. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
4. Exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Default in Payment of Rent:
The core issue was whether the appellant defaulted in payment of rent from February 1, 1992, to January 31, 1995. The High Court found the appellant/tenant had defaulted in rent payment for this period. Despite sending money orders and depositing rent under the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, the appellant failed to remit or deposit the rent in the manner required by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The High Court concluded that the appellant did not comply with the statutory requirements for payment of rent under the Act, resulting in a second default.

2. Validity of Rent Deposit under the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934:
The appellant argued that the rent deposited under the Punjab Act should be considered valid. However, the High Court and Supreme Court held that the deposit under the Punjab Act did not fulfill the requirements of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments, emphasizing that compliance with the specific provisions of the rent control legislation is mandatory. The deposit made under the Punjab Act was not recognized as a valid deposit under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

3. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958:
Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, prescribes the procedure for depositing rent when the landlord refuses to accept it. The appellant did not follow this procedure, which mandates depositing the rent with the Rent Controller and providing specific particulars. The Supreme Court reiterated that strict adherence to the statutory provisions is necessary for tenants to claim benefits under rent control legislation. The appellant's failure to deposit the rent as per Section 27 resulted in the default.

4. Exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India:
The appellant contended that the High Court should not have exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227, given the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating that the High Court intervened due to a serious error of law by the lower courts. The High Court's interference was justified as the lower courts failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming the appellant's default in rent payment and the invalidity of the deposit under the Punjab Act. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the eviction order against the appellant.