Tenant’s Defense Restored: Supreme Court Overturns Eviction Order

The case of Dina Nath (D) by LRs & Anr. vs. Subhash Chand Saini & Ors. revolves around the issue of whether the failure to deposit rent on time should lead to striking out a tenant’s defense in an eviction case. The Supreme Court, in its judgment on September 24, 2019, ruled that the discretionary power of the Rent Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 must be exercised judiciously and set aside the eviction order.

Background of the Case

The appellants were tenants of a shop in Dariba Kalan, Delhi, rented at a monthly rate of Rs. 66. The landlords, respondents in the case, filed an eviction petition in 2007 under Section 14(1)(a), (b), (c), and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, citing non-payment of rent and other alleged breaches.

The Rent Controller passed an order under Section 15(1) on April 21, 2008, directing the tenants to deposit rent arrears from November 1, 2007, and continue depositing rent monthly. Later, the landlords filed an application under Section 15(7), alleging non-compliance and seeking to strike out the tenants’ defense.

The Rent Controller allowed the application, and the defense was struck out. The Rent Control Tribunal and the Delhi High Court upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues and Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Tenants):

• The tenants had deposited arrears of rent and additional advance rent for ten months.
• The landlords failed to adjust the advance rent, which led to an incorrect claim of default.
• The tenants’ failure to deposit rent on time was not willful or contumacious.
• The discretionary power under Section 15(7) should not have been used punitively.

Arguments by the Respondents (Landlords):

• The tenants failed to comply with the April 21, 2008 order.
• The Rent Controller had correctly exercised its power to strike out the defense.
• The advance rent claim was not valid as it was not directed by the court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court emphasized that the power under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is discretionary and not mandatory. The Court noted:

“The striking out of a tenant’s defense is an exceptional step and should not be a matter of routine.”

The Court further ruled:

“The Rent Controller failed to consider that the tenants had deposited advance rent, which covered the period in question. The action of striking out the defense was not justified.”

Key Rulings and Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the eviction order and ruled:

• The tenants had substantially complied with the rent deposit order.
• The advance rent paid by the tenants should have been considered.
• The striking out of the defense was an excessive use of discretion.
• The eviction case must now be decided on its merits.

This ruling reaffirms the principle that discretionary powers must be exercised carefully and tenants should not be evicted for minor procedural lapses when they have substantially complied with court orders.

Petitioner Name: Dina Nath (D) by LRs & Anr..
Respondent Name: Subhash Chand Saini & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Dariba Kalan, Delhi.
Judgment Date: 24-09-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Dina Nath (D) by LRs vs Subhash Chand Saini Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 24-09-2019.pdf