Supreme Court historic decision on non-payment of tenant rent
www.thelawupdates.com
The Supreme Court has ruled that under Section 15 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the right of the Controller of Rent to terminate the tenant's protection is discretionary, not mandatory. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Justice MR Shah and Justice Ajay Rastogi held that mere failure to pay rent is not enough to justify the order of termination of tenant protection, but due to misdeeds or willful or arbitrary Only in case of non-payment of rent, the court concerned can exercise its extraordinary power. While giving the judgment in the case of 'Dinanath (deceased) vs Subhash Chand Saini', the bench said that discretionary right should be exercised only in case of misdemeanor or willful default and between the rights and obligations of tenant and landlord To maintain balance, one should think in a cordial manner. The authority under section 15 (7) of the Act, 1958 should be exercised with great care and prudence.
"The important point is that the Controller of Rent has the broad discretionary right to abolish or not to terminate the tenant's right of protection, but it is needless to say that section 15 (7) of the relevant rule provides Due to termination of the tenant's protection by exercising the right, the tenant is deprived of the right of protection found under section 14. Therefore it is necessary that the Act 1958 Section 15 (7) the right to receive tenant controller under must be very used carefully and wisely. " Comparing Sections 13 (5) and 15 (7) of Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1958, the Bench held that unlike the statutory instructions of section 15 (7), the Controller of Fare, Section 15 (1) of this Act, 1958 In the event of non-payment of rent, following the order issued under the Act, it cannot deprive him of the protection he has got from vacating the possession and the Controller should check the facts of each case while exercising this right. Certainly be judicious and judicious.
The court said,
through an amendment to the law, "the court shall order the abolition of the occupation of the occupier" by removing "the Controller may order the abolition of the possession of the occupier", which was in favor of the tenant Is a deliberate amendment. If it is proved that the tenant did not pay or deposit the rent, the court had no option but to terminate the tenant protection under the 1952 Act, but under the 1958 law the Controller in place of the court Has been given special powers in such a case, so that in any case even if the rent is not paid, but he (the Controller) is aware of the facts brought in the record. If satisfied at the edge, he may also refuse to terminate the tenant's protection after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case.
"Citing various judgments, the bench gave the following reply in this case: -
" Section 1958 of the Act Interpretation of the law relating to the powers vested under 15 (7) makes it clear that the use of discretionary right is a matter of misconduct or willful omission. It should be done within the same and should be considered in a cordial manner to maintain the balance between the rights and obligations of the tenant and the landlord. The authority under Section 15 (7) of the Act, 1958 should be exercised with great care and prudence. "
Website
https://thelawupdates.com
Youtube channel link here:
Facebook page:
Facebook group link here
https://www.facebook.com/groups/261353011575471/?ref=share
JUDGMENT HERE
0 Comments