Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by tenants against the High Court of Delhi's order upholding the Rent Controller's decision to strike out their defence in eviction proceedings under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenants had rented a shop in Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 66. The landlords filed an eviction petition in November 2007 on multiple grounds, including non-payment of rent. The Rent Controller passed an order under Section 15(1) on 21 April 2008 directing the tenants to deposit arrears from 1 November 2007 within 30 days and future rent month by month. The landlords alleged non-compliance and filed an application under Section 15(7) to strike out the defence. The tenants claimed they had deposited advance rent and were not in default. The Rent Controller struck out their defence on 14 September 2009, which was upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal on 24 May 2010 and the High Court on 10 May 2011. The Supreme Court examined the scheme of the Act, noting that Section 15(7) uses the word 'may', conferring discretion on the Rent Controller, unlike the earlier 1952 Act which used 'shall'. The Court held that the power is discretionary and should be exercised only when the tenant's default is deliberate, contumacious, or negligent. The Court found that the Rent Controller had not properly considered the tenants' explanation regarding advance rent and had mechanically struck out the defence. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the defence, directing the Rent Controller to decide the eviction petition on merits.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Striking Out Defence - Section 15(7) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Discretionary Power - The power to strike out defence under Section 15(7) is discretionary and not mandatory; it should be exercised only when the tenant deliberately, contumaciously or negligently fails to deposit rent. The change from 'shall' in the 1952 Act to 'may' in the 1958 Act indicates a deliberate modification in favour of tenants. (Paras 2, 14-15) B) Rent Control - Section 15(1) Order - Compliance - The Rent Controller must consider the facts and circumstances before striking out defence; mere non-compliance does not ipso facto lead to striking out. (Paras 2, 15) C) Rent Control - Eviction Proceedings - Protection of Tenants - The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 aims to give tenants a larger measure of protection against eviction while balancing landlords' interests. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the power vested with the Rent Controller under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is discretionary and has been judiciously exercised in striking out the defence of the appellants (tenants) in the eviction proceedings.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Rent Controller, Rent Control Tribunal, and High Court, and restored the defence of the appellants. The matter was remitted to the Rent Controller to decide the eviction petition on merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Discretionary power
- Striking out defence
- Section 15(7) Delhi Rent Control Act
- 1958
- Deliberate default
- Contumacious conduct
