Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1966 DIGILAW 83 (DEL)

KRISHAN KUMAR v. LALA RAM SARUP KHANNA

1966-07-26

S.K.KAPUR

body1966
S. B Capoor, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition by Krishan Kumar defendant in a suit for recovery of rent pending in the Court of Shri Man Singh, Subordinate Judge, Delhi and the impugned order is of the Subordinate Judge, dated 30th of March 1966, whereby he refused the petitioner s application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of the suit. ( 2 ) IN the suit which was instituted on the 26th of February 1965, the plaintiff land lord Ram Sarup Khanna claimed arrears of rent for the period 1st of December 1963 to 28th of February 1965, at the agreed rate of Rs. 250. 00 per mensern. The application by the defendant for stay was made on the ground that be had earlier to the institution of the suit, i. e. on the 20th of February 1963. made an application to the Additional Rent Controller, Shri P. C. Saini under the provisions of section 9 of Delhi Kent Control Act, 1958 (Act No. 59 of 1958) for the fixation of standard lent of the premises and that application was still pending. The trial court alter considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties observed that the suit was on the basis of agreed rate of rent and the defendant had a right under the Delhi Rent Control Act to recover any excess rent paid by him. There was no inconvenience to the defendant if he paid the rent in respect of the suit period to the plaintiff. On the other hand if the suit was stayed till the decisn of the application for fixation of standard rent, then the plaintiff will be put to inconvenience as one did not know when the application for fixation of standard rent will be decided finally. ( 3 ) MR. Daljit Singh, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner, has REFERRED TO to section 4 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, according to which no tenant (with an exception with which we are not concened) shall not withstanding any agreement to the contrary, be liable to pay to his landlord for the occupation of any premises any amount in excess of the standard rent of the premises, unless such amount is lawful increase of the standard rent in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Under section 5 no person shall claim or receive any rent in excess of the standard rent, not withstanding any agreement to the contrary. However, under section 6 (2) (b) in the case of any premises constructed on or after the 9th of June 1955, the annual rent calculated with reference to the rent agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant when such premises were first let out shall be deemed to be the standard rent for a period of five years from the date of such letting out. Section 7 provides for lawful increase of standard rent in certain cases and recovery of other charges. Under sab-section (7) of section 9 in fixing the standard rent of any premises under this section, the Controller shall specify a date from which the standard rent so fixed shall be deemed to have effect provided that in no case of the date so specific shall be earlier than one year prior to the date of the application for fixation of the Standard rent. Under section 10 where an application is made under section 9, the Controller shall, as expeditiously as possible, make an order specifying the interim rent to be paid by the tenant to the landlord pending final decision on the application. Under section 13 refund of rent paid in excess of the amount permissible under the provisions of the Act can be obtained on an application made to the Controller within a period of one year from the date of the excess payment. Section 14 gives certain specific grounds on which the landlord may apply for eviction of the tenant and under section 50 (1) the Rent Controller is given exclusive jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for the fixation of standard rent as well as proceedings for the eviction of a tenant and such other matters which the Controller is empowered under the Act to decide. ( 4 ) THESE are the main provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958, which have been REFERRED TO to by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of their arguments. Mr. ( 4 ) THESE are the main provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958, which have been REFERRED TO to by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of their arguments. Mr. Daijit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of sections 4 and 5, since the Rent Controller has exclusive jurisdiction to fix the standard rent, the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to proceed with the suit lor recovery of rent at the agreed rate and pass a decree at that rate. In this connection he REFERRED TO to a Single Beach decision of the Madhya Bharat High Court in Dulhanmal Rizumal v. Abdul Qadar Which was followed by another learned Judge of that Court in Manjual v. Prernchand. The learned Judge in the former case had before him the analogous provisions of the Indore House Rent Control Order, an3 it was considered that no decree could be passed in suits based on rent rates where the validity of rent notes was contigeat on the determination of fair rent by the Rent Controller who was cully seized of the matter prior to the institution of the suits on the rent notes. The matter has, however, been considered by Division Bench of our own High Court in Lala Lachmen Oass v. Goverdhan Dass with reference to similar provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Act 38 of 1952), which was subsequently replaced by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In that case a suit for recovery of arrents of rent was instituted by the landlord in the small Cause Court, Delhi, and one of the defences taken by the tenant and was that the rent claimed was more than the standard rent aud a prayer was made for fixing the standard rent. An objection ivas further taken regarding the jurisdiction of Small Cause Court to hear and decide the suit. An objection ivas further taken regarding the jurisdiction of Small Cause Court to hear and decide the suit. In the course of the judgment the Bench noticed that though in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the authority to determine the standard rent was vested in a special Tribunal, the Controller appointed under the Act, that Tribunal was not authorised to hear and decide a suit for recovery of rent or to mike any order in respect thereof, but that if a Civil Court passed a decree which had been found in excess of the amout fixed as a slaudard rent by the Rent Controller, the tenant could apply for refund of the excess to the Controller as provided by section 12 of Act No 38 of 1952 or section 13 of Act No. 59 of 1958. The Court noticed the argument submitted on behalf of the tenants that such a course would deprive a tenant of his right to claim the relief, by way of defence to a suit for recovery of rent, which defence would be available to him in the proceedings before the Controller for eviction even though the period of Limitation for an application for fixation of standard rent may have expired. But all the same the Court held that there was nothing In Act No. 38 of 1952 to oust the Small Cause Court of its exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide a suit for the recovery of the house rent, and the plain terms of law must be adhered to even at the risk of possible injustice in special cases or to particular litigants. The principle of this authority applies fully to the analogous provisions of Act No 59 of 1958 which fall to be interpreted in the case before me, and I would, therefore, reject the argument on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the trial Court had, in view of the pendency of the application before the Controller for the fixation of standard rent, no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit for the recovery of rent. ( 5 ) IT was then submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in case a decree for the arrears of rent it now passed by the Court and the proceedings for the fixation of the standard rent before the Controller remain pending for much longer, the tenant would not, in view of the limitation of one year provided in section 13 of the Act, beable to claim refund in respect of any excess payment made to the land lord earlier than one year from the order of the Controller fixing the standard rent. The hardship for the tanant, however, would be peculier to this case, because no such hardship arises if proceedings for fixation of standard rent before the Rent Controller are decided expeditiously as they should normally be. It is most unfortunate that in the instant case the application of the petioner for the fixa tion of the standard rent has been pending before the Additional Rent Controller, Shri P. C. Saini, for more than three years and, according to the submission made by Mr. D. K. Kapur, learned counsel for the respondent, even the petitioner s evidence has not yet started. However, the peculier circumstances of this case would not justify me to lay down the rule that the pending of proeedings for the fixation of standard rent before the Controller will be a valid ground for stay of a suit for the recovery of rent in a Civil Court. ( 6 ) UNDER section 10 of the Act the Controller was required to make as expeditiously as possible an order for fixation of interim rent, but I am told even that had not been done, so that if the suit giving rise to this revision petition is stayed and the proceedings before the Controller for fixation of standard rent drag on still further, the landlord will be deprived of his rent for a considerable period, which would certainly not be just. This is the consideration which weighed with the trial Court in its refusal to stay the suit and I have not been persuaded by Mr. Daljit Singh that was an improper exercise of discretion Moreover, Mr. This is the consideration which weighed with the trial Court in its refusal to stay the suit and I have not been persuaded by Mr. Daljit Singh that was an improper exercise of discretion Moreover, Mr. Kapur on behalf of the respondent has quite fairly given an undertaking that irrespective of the bar of limitation contained in section 13 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the respondent will make the necessary adjustment in the rent received by him in respect of any order passed by the Controller for the fixation of the standrd rent. ( 7 ) THE petition for revision is, therefore, dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment is to be forwarded to the Additional Rent Controller, Shri P. C. Saini, with the direction that the application for fixatian of standard rent between the parties pending before him be decided without any avoidable delay.