NONIHAL SINGH versus MAYA DEVI on 5 April 2018

[2018] 5 S.C.R. 551

NONIHAL SINGH

v.

MAYA DEVI

(Civil Appeal Nos. 3687-3688 of 2018)

APRIL 05, 2018

[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]

Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – Delay in depositingarrears of rent and mesne profits – Application for extension oftime and condonation of delay – In the instant case, Tribunal grantedeviction decree on 05.04.2014 on the ground of arrears of rentwith direction to the appellant-tenant to vacate the premises withinsix months – On writ petition, High Court ordered tenant to depositarrears of rent before 31.12.2017 and mesne profits w.e.f.01.11.2017 – Appellant could not deposit the arrears of rent withinprescribed time – Application for extension of time to deposit rentstood dismissed on 15.01.2018 – Meanwhile landlady had filedapplication for execution of decree of arrears of rent wherein thetenant deposited the amount on 12.01.2018 in court and the saidamount was handed over to the landlady on 15.01.2018 and courtrecorded full satisfaction of landlady and the file was consigned –However, High Court dismissed the prayer for condoning the delayin depositing the amount in writ petition filed by the appellant –Hence the appeals – Held: It is true that amount of arrears of rentas per order dated 01.11.2017 was to be deposited till 31.12.2017and since the amount could not be deposited, application forextension of time was filed – High Court did not consider that asubstantial amount in pursuance of order of the High Court inexecution proceedings was deposited on 12.01.2018 that is beforepassing order of the High Court on the application for extension oftime which fact was a relevant fact – Order dated 15.01.2018 waspassed in ignorance of the said fact – Order dated 15.01.2018does not advance substantial justice and is set aside – Similarly, anamount of Rs.33000/- was deposited on 15.01.2018 directly in thebank account of landlady which according to appellant was rentfor 11 months and condonation of delay was sought which wasrejected on 27.02.2018 – The circumstance that in executionproceedings the amount was deposited and accepted by landlady

551

A

B

CDEFG

H

Awas a relevant fact for condonation of delay in depositing the amount– Order dated 27.02.2018 is also set aside – Rent Control.

Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – Plea of respondent thatthere was non-compliance of Order dated 05.04.2014 as in the saidorder after six months from the order, the deposit was to be madeBthree times of the rent – Held: Plea not sustainable – Order dated05.04.2014 indicated that the direction was that if the tenant doesnot evacuate the premises within 6 months from the date of issue ofcertificate of re-possession, he shall be responsible to pay 3 timesrent to the landlady – The order dated 05.04.2014 itself mentionsthat the liability to pay three times rent shall accrue after six monthsCfrom the date of issue of certificate of re-possession – There is nomaterial to indicate as to when certificate of re-possession was issued– Secondly, the order made by the Rent Tribunal as well as RentAppellate Tribunal stood superseded by the order of the High Courtdated 01.11.2017 which was passed with the consent of both theDparties – High Court in its order dated 01.11.2017 recorded termsand conditions for permitting the appellant to continue in occupationof the premises in question till 30.04.2019 – The terms and conditionsrecorded in the order by the High Court are clearly in variancewith the decree of the Rent Tribunal and the Rent Appellate Tribunal– What was required to be adhered to are the directions of the HighECourt dated 01.11.2017 and not the order of the Tribunal as claimedfor the respondent – Appellant is directed to be put back inpossession of the premises – The appellant shall continue to depositthe mesne profit as per order of the High Court dated 01.11.2017and in the event of any default committed by the appellant, it shall Fbe open for the respondent-landlady to take appropriateproceedings against the appellant.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil AppealNos. 3687-3688 of 2018.

From the Judgment and Orders dated 27.02.2018 and 15.01.2018Gof the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBWMANo. 80 of 2018 and 9 of 2018 respectively.

Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms.Usha Nandini V., Advs. for the Appellant.

Vedant Singh, Michelle Gomes, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Advs.for the Respondent.H

The Order of the Court was passed by

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed by the tenant challenging theorders dated 15.01.2018 and 27.02.2018 by which High Court ofRajasthan at Jaipur has rejected the miscellaneous application forextension of time and miscellaneous application to condone delay indepositing arrears of rent and mesne profits. Miscellaneous applicationswere filed in Writ Petition No.19029 of 2017 which was earlier disposedof by the High Court on 01.11.2017.

3. Brief facts to be noted for deciding these appeals are:

The respondent-landlady filed an application under Section 9 ofthe Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 on 05.12.2006 before the RentTribunal, Alwar on the ground of default in payment of rent. The Tribunalvide its judgment dated 05.04.2014 allowed the application of landladydirecting the appellant to handover the vacant possession within sixmonths. The landlady was also entitled to receive rent from the date offiling the suit till the date of decision in the form of mesne profit.

The appeal was filed to the Rent Appellate Tribunal, DistrictAlwar which too was dismissed on 03.05.2017. The appellant aggrievedby the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal and Rent Appellate Tribunalfiled Writ Petition No.19029 of 2017 in the High Court which wasdisposed of by the High Court with certain directions. As per order dated01.11.2017 passed by the High Court the appellant was to deposit arrearsof rent before 31.12.2017 and further mesne profit at the rate ofRs.3,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.11.2017. The appellant could not depositthe arrears of rent within time allowed by the High Court.

5. An application was filed by the appellant for extension of timeto deposit the rent which was dismissed on 15.01.2018 by the followingorder:

“The matter comes up on an application for extension oftime to deposit arrears of rent under the order dated01.11.2017 passed by this Court.

I am of the considered view that no ground for extensionof time is made out.

It is accordingly dismissed.”

A

B

CD

E

F

G

A

A6. It is relevant to note that before 15.01.2018, the landlady hasfiled application for execution of decree of arrears of rent in whichapplication the landlady has claimed arrears of rent from 04.09.2003 to19.03.2017 totaling to Rs.96,997/-. In the execution of decree the amountwas deposited by the appellant on 12.01.2018 in Court in the executionproceedings. The aforesaid amount was also handed over to the decree-Bholder on 15.01.2018 and execution was filed recording full satisfaction.

7. The appellant further made a deposit of Rs.33,000/- on15.02.2018 in the bank account of landlady claiming to be mesne profit.Another miscellaneous application was filed by the appellant on15.02.2018 in Writ Petition No.19029 of 2017 praying for condoning theCdelay in depositing the amount which application was also rejected bythe High Court on 27.02.2018 by the following order:

“Heard the counsel for the applicant and the non-applicanton the application for condonation of delay in depositing thearrears of rent/mesne profits in pursuance to the order datedD01.11.2017 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.19029/2017titled Nonihal Singh vs. Smt. Maya Devi.

Having heard the counsel for the applicant and the non-applicant, I am of the considered view that in the factsobtaining no ground obtains for expanding the time forEdepositing the arrears of rent/mesne profits as prayed for.

The application stands dismissed.”

8. Aggrieved against the aforesaid two orders, these appeals havebeen filed by the appellant. The appeals were taken on 27.03.2018 whichwere directed to be listed on 28.03.2018. In the meantime, respondentFclaims to have obtained possession of premises in question on 27.03.2018itself. When the case was taken up by this Court on 28.03.2018, thisCourt noticing the submission of the respondent that the possession ofthe premises has been taken on 27.03.2018, directed for maintainingstatus quo.G

9. When the matter was heard on 05.04.2018, learned counsel forthe respondent filed an affidavit annexing judgments of courts below. Inthe affidavit, it is stated that the appellant has not deposited the amountas per order dated 01.11.2017 of the High Court. The respondent refutedthe claim of the appellant that he has deposited the entire arrears of H

rent/mesne profits. It was further pleaded that as per order dated05.04.2014, the appellant was directed to make payment of rent calculatedat three times of the existing rate which has not been complied with.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perusedthe records.

11. These two appeals have been filed questioning the two orderspassed by the High Court dated 15.01.2018 and 27.02.1018 by whichorders prayer of the appellant for extension of time to deposit arrears ofrent and condoning the delay in depositing arrears of rent has beenrejected. Whether the High court committed any error in rejecting theaforesaid applications is the main question to be considered in the presentappeals.

12. The writ petition challenging the order of Rent Tribunal andthe Rent Appellate Tribunal filed by the appellant has been disposed ofon 01.11.2017 with the following directions:

“(i) The petitioner-tenant shall be entitled to continue inoccupation of the tenanted premises in question upto April30, 2019, but not beyond subject to condition that he wouldhand over the vacant possession of the premises in questionto respondent-landlord on or before April 30, 2019.

(ii) The petitioner-tenant shall pay arrears of rent or mesneprofits, if any, till October 31, 2017, as determined by thecourts within a period of two months from today.

(iii) The petitioner-tenant commencing 1[st] November, 2017shall pay to respondent-landlords, mesne profits @Rs.3000/- per month on or before 10[th] of each month.

(iv) The petitioner-tenant shall not alienate or otherwise createthird party right, or hand over possession of the tenantedpremises in question to any other person.

Further, the petitioner-tenant shall submit an undertakingincorporating the aforesaid conditions before the RentTribunal Alwar, within a period of thirty days, from the dateof this order. In case the petitioner-tenant fails to submit theundertaking as aforesaid within thirty days from today, and/or breaches the conditions of this order, the respondents- A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Alandlords shall be entitled to the immediate execution of thejudgment and possession certificate dated 03.05.2017 andobtain possession of the premises in issue forthwith inaccordance with law. The breach of this order shall also beliable to be punished as contempt of the court.”

B13. The landlady has filed execution application on 25.03.2017before the Rent Tribunal claiming rent of Rs.96,997/- for the period from04.09.2003 to 19.03.2017. In execution proceedings, aforesaid amountof Rs.96,997/- has been deposited by the appellant on 12.01.2018 receiptof which payment has been filed as annexure P-4. It is also relevant tonote that in the execution proceedings dated 15.01.2018 court passedCthe following order:

“Decree holder Maya Devi with Advocate Manish Jainpresent. The file has been pursued. Mentioned amountRs.96997/- in recovery warrant in compliance of O-21 R 30CPC were handed over to decree holder-Mrs. Maya Devi.DThe Advocate of decree holder expressed full satisfaction inthe execution application. In view of full satisfaction intomatter of execution, application is filed with a direction toconsign the record.”

14. On the same date when the execution was filed recordingEsatisfaction, the High Court rejected the application of the appellant forextension of time. The order of the High Court does not reflect that as towhether parties brought into the notice of the Court that in pursuance ofthe execution application amount of Rs.96,997/- has been deposited on12.01.2018. The High Court exercises the jurisdiction under Article 226Fand 227 for the purpose of securing the ends of justice. It is true thatamount of arrears of rent as per order dated 01.11.2017 was to bedeposited till 31.12.2017 and since the amount could not be deposited,application for extension of time was filed. We have no doubt that had itbeen brought in the notice of the High Court that amount ofRs.96,997/- has been deposited on 12.01.2018, the High Court wouldGhave considered the fact that a substantial amount in pursuance of orderof the High Court in execution proceedings has been deposited on12.1.2018 that is before passing order of the High Court on the applicationfor extension of time which fact was a relevant fact and the order dated15.01.2018 has been passed in ignorance of the said fact. We are satisfiedHthat order dated 15.01.2018 does not advance substantial justice. Further, after depositing Rs.96,997/-, a further amount of Rs.33,000/- wasdeposited on 15.02.2018 directly in the bank account of landlady receiptof which has been filed as Annexure P-6 which according to the appellantis rent for 11 months at the rate of Rs.3,000/- subsequent to the periodwhich was included in the execution application. After depositing amountof Rs.33,000/- another miscellaneous application being No.80 of 2018was filed praying for condonation of delay in depositing the amount. On27.02.2018 when application was taken both the amounts, i.e.,Rs.96,997/- and Rs.33,000/- covering mesne profits upto February, 2018were deposited. Copy of the Misc. Application No.80 of 2018 has beenbrought on record as Annexure P-3. In paragraph 5 of the applicationthere is an averment regarding deposit of amount of Rs.96,997/- whichwas claimed to have been withdrawn by the respondent on 15.01.2018.Copy of the order sheet of the trial court was also annexed. Further, theamount from 20.03.2017 to 31.10.2017 and thereafter till February, 2018was also claimed to be deposited which averment has been made inparagraph 6 of the application. It was also mentioned that the earlierapplication was dismissed on 15.01.2018. A perusal of the High Court’sorder dated 27.02.2018 does not indicate that the Court has referred tothe above mentioned averments in the application.

15. In the subsequent application, prayer was made for condoningthe delay in depositing the amount. The deposit had already been madeby the appellant which was also accepted by the respondent which isclear from the order of the Trial Court dated 15.01.2018 as noted above.The circumstance that in execution proceedings the amount has beendeposited and accepted by the landlady was a relevant fact forcondonation of delay in depositing the amount. The power and jurisdictionof the High Court vested under Sections 226 and 227 is for the purposeof securing ends of justice. In the facts of the present case, the HighCourt vide its order dated 01.11.2017 has already permitted the appellantto continue in occupation of the tenanted premises in question upto30.04.2019.

16. It is true that there was delay in depositing the arrears of rentby the tenant as per order dated 01.11.2017 but subsequently in executionproceedings deposits were made and further deposits were made in thebank account covering the period upto February, 2018, which factswere not adverted to by the High Court while rejecting the applicationfor condonation of delay in deposit.

ABC

D

E

F

G

H

A

A17. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the depositmade by the appellant is not in accordance with the order dated05.04.2014. It is submitted that in the order dated 05.04.2014 after sixmonths from the order, the deposit was to be made at rate of three timeof the rent. Order dated 05.04.2014 which is referred by the learnedcounsel for the respondent is to the following effect:B

“

-: Order :-

Eventually petitioner’s this petition suit under Section 9 ofthe Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 accepting againstrespondent with cost is decreed this way that respondent/tenantshall handover the disputed rented premises whose completedetail is described in para 3 of main petition suit byevacuating premise’s empty hold within 6 months from the dateof decision to the petitioner/landlord.

C

In the determined duration in the situation of giving theDpossession of the premises to the petitioner by respondentpetitioner shall receive normal due rent till the receiving ofthe possession. If the tenant does not evacuate the premiseswithin 6 months from the date of issue of certificate ofre-possession then he shall be responsible to pay 3 times rentto the petitioner from the determined rate of due rent in theEform of mesne profits from the date of issue of certificate ofre-possession.

D

Petitioner shall have right to receive rent from the date offiling suit till date of decision according to rule in form ofmesne profit.”F

The perusal of the said order indicates that the direction was thatif the tenant does not evacuate the premises within 6 months from thedate of issue of certificate of re-possession, he shall be responsible topay 3 times rent to the landlady.

18. There are two reasons due to which the above submission ofthe respondent cannot be accepted. Firstly, the order dated 05.04.2014itself mentions that the liability to pay 3 times rent shall accrue after sixmonths from the date of issue of certificate of re-possession. There isno material to indicate as to when certificate of re-possession was issued.Secondly, the order made by the Rent Tribunal as well as Rent Appellate G

H

Tribunal stand superseded by the order of the High Court dated 01.11.2017which was passed with the consent of both the parties. The High Courtin its order dated 01.11.2017 recorded terms and conditions for permittingthe appellant to continue in occupation of the premises in question till30.04.2019. The terms and conditions recorded in the order by the HighCourt are clearly in variance with the decree of the Rent Tribunal andthe Rent Appellate Tribunal. What was required to be adhered to are thedirections of the High Court dated 01.11.2017 and not the order of theTribunal as claimed by the learned counsel for the respondent.

19. We are, thus, of the opinion that the relevant materials havebeen brought on record to prove that the appellant deposited the arrearsof rent/mesne profits as per order of the High Court dated 01.11.2017though belatedly. The appellant has also brought on record the receipt ofpayment of amount of Rs.33,000/- towards rent for the period of20.03.2017 to 28.02.2018 @ Rs.3,000/- towards March, 2018.

20. In the result, we set aside the orders of the High Court dated15.01.2018 and 27.02.1018 and further direct that the appellant be putback in possession of the premises within a period of one week. Theappellant shall continue to deposit the mesne profit as per order of theHigh Court dated 01.11.2017 and in the event of any default committedby the appellant, it shall be open for the respondent-landlady to takeappropriate proceedings against the appellant. The appeals are allowedaccordingly.

Devika Gujral

Appeals allowed.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H