Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.36873688 OF 2018
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C)NOS.697273 OF 2018)
NONIHAL SINGH … APPELLANT
VERSUS
MAYA DEVI … RESPONDENT
O R D E R
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been filed by the tenant
challenging the orders dated 15.01.2018 and 27.02.2018 by
which High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur has rejected the
miscellaneous application for extension of time and
miscellaneous application to condone delay in depositing
arrears of rent and mesne profits. Miscellaneous
applications were filed in Writ Petition No.19029 of 2017
Signature Not Verified
which was earlier disposed of by the High Court on
Digitally signed by
SUSHIL KUMAR
RAKHEJA
Date: 2018.05.12
11:17:19 IST
Reason:
01.11.2017.
2
3. Brief facts to be noted for deciding these appeals
are:
The respondentlandlady filed an application under
Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 on
05.12.2006 before the Rent Tribunal, Alwar on the ground
of default in payment of rent. The Tribunal vide its
judgment dated 05.04.2014 allowed the application of
landlady directing the appellant to handover the vacant
possession within six months. The landlady was also
entitled to receive rent from the date of filing the suit
till the date of decision in the form of mesne profit.
3. The appeal was filed to the Rent Appellate Tribunal,
District Alwar which too was dismissed on 03.05.2017. The
appellant aggrieved by the orders passed by the Rent
Tribunal and Rent Appellate Tribunal filed Writ Petition
No.19029 of 2017 in the High Court which was disposed of
by the High Court with certain directions. As per order
dated 01.11.2017 passed by the High Court the appellant
was to deposit arrears of rent before 31.12.2017 and
further mesne profit at the rate of Rs.3,000/ per month
w.e.f. 01.11.2017. The appellant could not deposit the
arrears of rent within time allowed by the High Court.
3
5. An application was filed by the appellant for
extension of time to deposit the rent which was dismissed
on 15.01.2018 by the following order:
"The matter comes up on an
application for extension of time to
deposit arrears of rent under the order
dated 01.11.2017 passed by this Court.
I am of the considered view that no
ground for extension of time is made out.
It is accordingly dismissed.”
6. It is relevant to note that before 15.01.2018, the
landlady has filed application for execution of decree of
arrears of rent in which application the landlady has
claimed arrears of rent from 04.09.2003 to 19.03.2017
totaling to Rs.96,997/. In the execution of decree the
amount was deposited by the appellant on 12.01.2018 in
Court in the execution proceedings. The aforesaid amount
was also handed over to the decreeholder on 15.01.2018
and execution was filed recording full satisfaction.
7. The appellant further made a deposit of Rs.33,000/
on 15.02.2018 in the bank account of landlady claiming to
be mesne profit. Another miscellaneous application was
filed by the appellant on 15.02.2018 in Writ Petition
4
No.19029 of 2017 praying for condoning the delay in
depositing the amount which application was also rejected
by the High Court on 27.02.2018 by the following order:
“Heard the counsel for the applicant
and the nonapplicant on the application
for condonation of delay in depositing
the arrears of rent/mesne profits in
pursuance to the order dated 01.11.2017
passed by this Court in SBCWP
No.19029/2017 titled Nonihal Singh vs.
Smt. Maya Devi.
Having heard the counsel for the
applicant and the nonapplicant, I am of
the considered view that in the facts
obtaining no ground obtains for expanding
the time for depositing the arrears of
rent/mesne profits as prayed for.
The application stands dismissed.”
8. Aggrieved against the aforesaid two orders, these
appeals have been filed by the appellant. The appeals
were taken on 27.03.2018 which were directed to be listed
on 28.03.2018. In the meantime, respondent claims to have
obtained possession of premises in question on 27.03.2018
itself. When the case was taken up by this Court on
28.03.2018, this Court noticing the submission of the
respondent that the possession of the premises has been
taken on 27.03.2018, directed for maintaining status quo.
5
9. When the matter was heard on 05.04.2018, learned
counsel for the respondent filed an affidavit annexing
judgments of courts below. In the affidavit, it is stated
that the appellant has not deposited the amount as per
order dated 01.11.2017 of the High Court. The respondent
refuted the claim of the appellant that he has deposited
the entire arrears of rent/mesne profits. It was further
pleaded that as per order dated 05.04.2014, the appellant
was directed to make payment of rent calculated at three
times of the existing rate which has not been complied
with.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
11. These two appeals have been filed questioning the two
orders passed by the High Court dated 15.01.2018 and
27.02.2018 by which orders prayer of the appellant for
extension of time to deposit arrears of rent and
condoning the delay in depositing arrears of rent has
been rejected. Whether the High court committed any error
in rejecting the aforesaid applications is the main
question to be considered in the present appeals.
12. The writ petition challenging the order of Rent
6
Tribunal and the Rent Appellate Tribunal filed by the
appellant has been disposed of on 01.11.2017 with the
following directions:
"(i) The petitionertenant shall be
entitled to continue in occupation of the
tenanted premises in question upto April
30, 2019, but not beyond subject to
condition that he would hand over the
vacant possession of the premises in
question to respondentlandlord on or
before April 30, 2019.
(ii) The petitionertenant shall pay
arrears of rent or mesne profits, if any,
till October 31, 2017, as determined by
the courts within a period of two months
from today.
st
(iii) The petitionertenant commencing 1
November, 2017 shall pay to respondent
landlords, mesne profits @ Rs.3000/ per
th
month on or before 10 of each month.
(iv) The petitionertenant shall not
alienate or otherwise create third party
right, or hand over possession of the
tenanted premises in question to any
other person.
Further, the petitionertenant shall
submit an undertaking incorporating the
aforesaid conditions before the Rent
Tribunal Alwar, within a period of thirty
days, from the date of this order. In
case the petitionertenant fails to
submit the undertaking as aforesaid
within thirty days from today, and/or
breaches the conditions of this order,
the respondentslandlords shall be
entitled to the immediate execution of
7
the judgment and possession certificate
dated 03.05.2017 and obtain possession of
the premises in issue forthwith in
accordance with law. The breach of this
order shall also be liable to be punished
as contempt of the court.”
13. The landlady has filed execution application on
25.03.2017 before the Rent Tribunal claiming rent of
Rs.96,997/ for the period from 04.09.2003 to 19.03.2017.
In execution proceedings, aforesaid amount of Rs.96,997/
has been deposited by the appellant on 12.01.2018 receipt
of which payment has been filed as annexure P4. It is
also relevant to note that in the execution proceedings
dated 15.01.2018 court passed the following order:
"Decree holder Maya Devi with Advocate
Manish Jain present. The file has been
pursued. Mentioned amount Rs.96997/in
recovery warrant in compliance of O21 R
30 CPC were handed over to decree holder
Mrs. Maya Devi. The Advocate of decree
holder expressed full satisfaction in the
execution application. In view of full
satisfaction into matter of execution,
application is filed with a direction to
consign the record.”
14. On the same date when the execution was filed
recording satisfaction, the High Court rejected the
application of the appellant for extension of time. The
8
order of the High Court does not reflect that as to
whether parties brought into the notice of the Court that
in pursuance of the execution application amount of
Rs.96,997/ has been deposited on 12.01.2018. The High
Court exercises the jurisdiction under Article 226 and
227 for the purpose of securing the ends of justice. It
is true that amount of arrears of rent as per order dated
01.11.2017 was to be deposited 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 it
been brought in the notice of the High Court that amount
of Rs.96,997/ has been deposited on 12.01.2018, the High
Court would have considered the fact that a substantial
amount in pursuance of order of the High Court in
execution proceedings has been deposited on 12.1.2018
that is before passing order of the High Court on the
application for extension of time which fact was a
relevant fact and the order dated 15.01.2018 has been
passed in ignorance of the said fact. We are satisfied
that order dated 15.01.2018 does not advance substantial
justice. Further, after depositing Rs.96,997/, a further
amount of Rs.33,000/ was deposited on 15.02.2018
9
directly in the bank account of landlady receipt of which
has been filed as Annexure P6 which according to the
appellant is rent for 11 months at the rate of Rs.3,000/
subsequent to the period which was included in the
execution application. After depositing amount of
Rs.33,000/ another miscellaneous application being No.80
of 2018 was filed praying for condonation of delay in
depositing the amount. On 27.02.2018 when application was
taken both the amounts, i.e., Rs.96,997/ and Rs.33,000/
covering mesne profits upto February, 2018 were
deposited. Copy of the Misc. Application No.80 of 2018
has been brought on record as Annexure P3. In paragraph
5 of the application there is an averment regarding
deposit of amount of Rs.96,997/ which was 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, the amount from 20.03.2017 to 31.10.2017 and
thereafter till February, 2018 was also claimed to be
deposited which averment has been made in paragraph 6 of
the application. It was also mentioned that the earlier
application was dismissed on 15.01.2018. A perusal of the
High Court's order dated 27.02.2018 does not indicate
10
that the Court has referred to the above mentioned
averments in the application.
15. In the subsequent application, prayer was made for
condoning the delay in depositing the amount. The deposit
had already been made by the appellant which was also
accepted by the respondent which is clear from the order
of the Trial Court dated 15.01.2018 as noted above.
The circumstance that in execution proceedings the amount
has been deposited and accepted by the landlady was a
relevant fact for condonation of delay in depositing the
amount. The power and jurisdiction of the High Court
vested under Sections 226 and 227 is for the purpose of
securing ends of justice. In the facts of the present
case, the High Court vide its order dated 01.11.2017 has
already permitted the appellant to continue in occupation
of the tenanted premises in question upto 30.04.2019.
16. It is true that there was delay in depositing the
arrears of rent by the tenant as per order dated
01.11.2017 but subsequently in execution proceedings
deposits were made and further deposits were made in the
bank account covering the period upto February,
2018, which facts were not adverted to by the
11
High Court while rejecting the application for
condonation of delay in deposit.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
deposit made by the appellant is not in accordance with
the order dated 05.04.2014. It is submitted that in the
order dated 05.04.2014 after six months from the order,
the deposit was to be made at rate of three time of the
rent. Order dated 05.04.2014 which is referred by the
learned counsel for the respondent is to the following
effect:
" : Order :
Eventually petitioner's this
petition suit under Section 9 of the
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
accepting against respondent with cost is
decreed this way that respondent/tenant
shall handover the disputed rented
premises whose complete detail is
described in para 3 of main petition suit
by evacuating premise's empty hold within
6 months from the date of decision to the
petitioner/landlord.
In the determined duration in the
situation of giving the possession of the
premises to the petitioner by respondent
petitioner shall receive normal due rent
till the receiving of the possession. If
the tenant does not evacuate the premises
within 6 months from the date of issue of
certificate of repossession then he
shall be responsible to pay 3 times rent
12
to the petitioner from the determined
rate of due rent in the form of mesne
profits from the date of issue of
certificate of repossession.
Petitioner shall have right to
receive rent from the date of filing suit
till date of decision according to rule
in form of mesne profit.”
The perusal of the said order indicates that the
direction was that if the tenant does not evacuate the
premises within 6 months from the date of issue of
certificate of repossession, he shall be responsible to
pay 3 times rent to the landlady.
18. There are two reasons due to which the above
submission of the respondent cannot be accepted. Firstly,
the order dated 05.04.2014 itself mentions that the
liability to pay 3 times rent shall accrue after six
months from the date of issue of certificate of re
possession. There is no material to indicate as to when
certificate of repossession was issued. Secondly, the
order made by the Rent Tribunal as well as Rent Appellate
Tribunal stand superseded by the order of the High Court
dated 01.11.2017 which was passed with the consent of
both the parties. The High Court in its order dated
13
01.11.2017 recorded terms and conditions for permitting
the appellant to continue in occupation of the premises
in question till 30.04.2019. The terms and conditions
recorded in the order by the High Court are clearly in
variance with the decree of the Rent Tribunal and the
Rent Appellate Tribunal. What was required to be adhered
to are the directions of the High Court dated 01.11.2017
and not the order of the Tribunal as claimed by the
learned counsel for the respondent.
19. We are, thus, of the opinion that the relevant
materials have been brought on record to prove that the
appellant deposited the arrears of rent/mesne profits as
per order of the High Court dated 01.11.2017 though
belatedly. The appellant has also brought on record the
receipt of payment of amount of Rs.33,000/ towards rent
for the period of 20.03.2017 to 28.02.2018 @ Rs.3,000/
towards March, 2018.
20. In the result, we set aside the orders of the High
Court dated 15.01.2018 and 27.02.2018 and further direct
that the appellant be put back in possession of the
premises within a period of one week. The appellant shall
continue to deposit the mesne profit as per order of the
14
High Court dated 01.11.2017 and in the event of any
default committed by the appellant, it shall be open for
the respondentlandlady to take appropriate proceedings
against the appellant. The appeals are allowed
accordingly.
...............................J.
( A.K. SIKRI )
...............................J.
( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
NEW DELHI,
APRIL 05, 2018.