9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (2) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and monthly rent as required by that Section. This order left open the question whether the relationship of landlord and tenant actually existed and stated that the order was being passed without prejudice to the contentions of the respondents that they were not tenants of the appellants. The arrears of rent were deposited on 15th July, 1964, which was five days beyond the period allowed by the order, but as the Courts were closed till that date for vacation, this delay has no legal effect. The deposit of the rent for the months of August, September, October and November, 1964 was made on 17th October, 1964. This deposit in so far as it related to the month of August, 19164 was late by over a month but the deposit for the other months was either before time or not much delayed. Thereafter, the deposit of rent for the subsequent period from 1st December, 19,64 to 31st January, 1968 i.e. a period of 38 months, was deposited on 22nd December, 1967. This deposit was obviously very much belated, and normally, it should have led to the striking out the defense of the respondents. However, there are some unusual circumstances to explain why this delay took place. This deposit was made on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount and let their application for striking out the defense to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the respondents made the deposit of monthly rent for three years regularly and within time before the second application for striking out the defense was moved on 11th May, 1970. 1 am now told that the deposits of rent have also been made regularly right up to date, which means that the respondents have made the deposits regularly up to-date and the only defaults that can be found, are the defaults which occurred before December, 1967 which were also the defaults mentioned in the previous application for striking out the defense, 3. The Rent Control Tribunal has decided in favor of the respondents on two grounds. Firstly, it was satisfied that the default occurred because the respondents were under a mistaken belief that they were not required to deposit the rent because of the stay of proceedings, ordered by the High Court. The Controller found this substantiated from the fact that as soon as the application was moved under Section 15(7) they deposited the entire rent and thus showed that they did not want to withhold the arrears of rent deliberately, Furthermore, it h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejectment case. Surely, it is an order which affects the merits of the case. I for one, cannot clearly say whether the stay of proceedings in the case, also amounts to a stay of the order directing the deposit of a monthly rent. In this connection I would like to point that the provisions of Section 15(1) enable the Rent Controller to direct the payment of rent to the landlord or to direct its deposit. The Controller generally directs a deposit, with the result that the parties and the Controller have to -face the problem of passing orders every month in respect of the amount actually deposited, and subsequently, further orders to allow the landlord to withdraw the amount. If it is left to the tenant either to make the deposit, or to pay the money direct to the landlord in the tenant's discretion, much of the time of the Controller could be saved, and a lot of administrative work would become unnecessary. If, in the present case the order had been one of not only depositing in court but also to pay the amount directly to the landlord, many of the problems that have since arisen would not have arisen at all. The tenant would have had no cause to say that the proceedings had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Section 15(1), 1 think that it was legitimate for the Rent Control Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the respondents were in fact misled as to the effect of the stay order passed. 7. Coming now to the question as to whether the delay in making the deposit should lead to the striking out the defense, this depends on how the Court or Controller has to apply Section 15(7) to the facts of the case. The Controller has the option to strike out the defense or not to strike out the defense depending on how he views the action of the tenant. The Rent Control Tribunal has examined this question in detail. I think I need not repeat what has been said elsewhere, that, what has to be seen is whether there was a willful or contumacious default in complying with the order directing payment of rent. The tenant has obviously not deposited the rent for a considerable period and if the order of stay of proceedings does not operate as an order staying the order under S. 15(1) then, this default is clearly willful or contumacious. The delay is as long as three years. Very unusual circumstances must exist before it can be held that this was a default other than willful or contumacious. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
