9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on appeal the order of the Rent Controller fixing standard rent was set aside by the High Court by its order dated May 22, 1972 holding that the tenants were liable to pay the agreed rent. It appears that the tenants fell in arrears of rent and did not pay the same in spite of service of notice of demand. The appellants, therefore, were compelled to file three different petitions for eviction of the respondents under section 13(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952 ). During the pendency of the proceedings the Act of 1958 came into force. The tenants however deposited the arrears and got the benefit of non-eviction under section 13(2) of the Act of 1952 which provides that no decree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be passed on the ground of default in payment of rent if, on the first date of the hearing of the proceedings for eviction or within such further time as may be allowed by the court, the tenant pays in cash the arrears of rent then due together with the costs of the suit. The respondents again committed a default in the payment of arrears of rent and failed to pay the same within t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of this question depends upon the interpretation of sub- section 2 together with its proviso. Section 13(1) of the 1952 Act, insofar as material, reads : 13.(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law or any contract, no decree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be passed by any Court in favour of landlord against any tenant (including a tenant whose tenancy is terminated.) Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any suit or other proceeding for such recovery of possession if the Court is satisfied. (a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent due within one month of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (IV of 1882); or (2) No decree or order for recovery of possession shall be passed on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1), if, on the first day of the hearing of the suit or within such further time as may be allowed by the Court, the tenant pays in Court the arrears of rent then due together ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition to the arrears of rent the Controller can also order the payment of pendente lite rent. Under section 13(2) of the old Act there was no provision for the payment of pendente lite rent. The benefit of section 14(2) under the new Act is available on payment of the arrears as well as the pendente lite rent. In view of these differences between the two provisions it cannot be said that the dismissal of the previous suit by Shri Tandon was under Section 14(2) of the new Act. me benefit of Section 14(2) is being given to the tenant, therefore, for the first time in the present proceedings. me proviso to section 14(2) is not therefore, a bar to the grant of this benefit to him. Shri Bhatia appearing for the appellants contended that the aforesaid observation made in the reported case is only by way of obiter dicta inasmuch as no arguments were in fact advanced as to the true interpretation and the scope of section 14(2) of the Act of 1958 and it appears to have been assumed in this case by the parties concerned that the benefit of non-eviction on account of non-payment of rent derived by a tenant under the old Act cannot be taken into consideration under section 14(2) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efit under this sub-section i.e. sub-section 2 of section 14, thus if the expressions deposit under-section 15 in sub-section 2 of section 14 and such benefit in the proviso thereto is given a meaning, there is no escape from the conclusion that no second benefit can be given to a tenant if he had already received the benefit under sub-section 2 by deposit made in accordance with the provisions of section 15 of the Act of 1958. It was further contended on the strength of the proviso to sub-section 2 of section 57 of the Act of 1958, that even if the deposit was made under section 13(2) of the Act of 1952 during the pendency of the Act of 1958, the Court or the authority shall have to take into consideration the provisions of the Act of 1958 and in that view of the matter it can safely be assumed that the deposit made by the respondents during the pendency of the Act of 1958 is a deposit within the meaning of section 15 of Act of 1958. Thus argument again ignores sub-section 2 of section 57. Sub-section 2 is a saving clause and provides that notwithstanding the repeal of the Act of 1952, all suits and other proceedings under the said Act pending at the commencement of this Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
