Om Prakash Gupta versus Rattan Singh and Another — Supreme Court (1964) — LawSathi Research

Om Prakash Gupta versus Rattan Singh and Another — Supreme Court (1964) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to appellant; appeal dismissed with costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Rent Control authorities under the Delhi Rent Control Act had jurisdiction where the person sought to be evicted denied the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the applicant for eviction. +3 more

Court's answer

Where a tenant denies that the applicant is the landlord, the Controller has to decide whether a landlord-tenant relationship exists; if the Controller decides there is no such relationship, the proceeding must be terminated without deciding the question of eviction, but if he holds the contrary the proceedings continue.

Ratio / Principle

A simple denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant, whether by the alleged landlord or the alleged tenant, does not oust the jurisdiction of the tribunals under the Act, since otherwise any interested party could block the proceedings by a bare denial; when the relationship is denied the authorities under the Act have themselves to determine that question.

Key takeaways

Orders under s. 15 are primarily meant for the benefit of the tenant and presuppose that the Controller has jurisdiction to determine the issue of relationship; when the Controller made the deposit order under s. 15(1) and, on default, the order under sub-s. (7) of s. 15 striking out the defence, he must be deemed to have decided that the appellant was a tenant, the appellant having invited those orders for his benefit.ratio¶63
The proper course for a person contending that he is not a tenant is to raise that plea and walk out of the proceedings, not to submit to jurisdiction and avail himself of the protection against eviction afforded by the Act; by taking active steps to obtain the Controller's order giving him time to deposit outstanding rent, the appellant submitted to and benefited from the Act's provisions.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act LIX of 1958) - Eviction - Jurisdiction of Rent Controller/Tribunal - Occupant sought to be evicted under s. 14(1)(a) & (e) (persistent rent default; bona fide requirement) denied the landlord-tenant relationship, claiming the premises stood let to the All India Postal & R.M.S. Union. Held: under the Rent Control law the tribunal proceeds on the footing that the relationship exists, and a bare denial by the occupier does not oust its jurisdiction; only when the tribunal concludes that no such relationship exists does it lose jurisdiction, the proceeding then terminating without deciding eviction. Orders under s. 15 - deposit of arrears/future rent (s. 15(1)-(2)) and striking out the defence on default (s. 15(7)) - are primarily for the tenant's benefit; an occupier who invites or avails of such orders is deemed, by the Controller's very decision, to be a tenant, and the proper course for one denying tenancy is to raise the plea and walk out of the proceedings. Within the statute the tribunals under the Act enjoy exclusive jurisdiction and their orders are final, immune from collateral challenge. As a second appeal lay against the Tribunal's order of March 6, 1962 dismissing the appeal against striking out of the defence and was not taken, that order became final and the question whether the appellant was a tenant, and the challenge to jurisdiction, could not be reagitated. Condonation of a one-day delay in the Tribunal appeal was discretionary with the appellate authority and academically irrelevant since the appeal failed on merits as well. Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 541 of 1962, by special leave) dismissed with costs.

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Rent Control authorities under the Delhi Rent Control Act had jurisdiction where the person sought to be evicted denied the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the applicant for eviction.¶52
The court held
Where a tenant denies that the applicant is the landlord, the Controller has to decide whether a landlord-tenant relationship exists; if the Controller decides there is no such relationship, the proceeding must be terminated without deciding the question of eviction, but if he holds the contrary the proceedings continue.ratio¶55
2.
Whether, no second appeal having been filed against the Rent Control Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal regarding striking out of the appellant's defence, that order had become final between the parties so as to render the present appeal incompetent.¶51
The court held
Since a second appeal lay from the Rent Control Tribunal's appellate order dismissing the appeal against the striking out of the defence and no such second appeal was taken to the High Court, that order (dated March 6, 1962) became final between the parties and is no longer open to challenge; consequently it is no longer open to the appellant to challenge the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act.ratio¶76
3.
Whether the provisions of s. 15 of the Act (order for payment/deposit of rent and striking out of defence on default) could properly be applied against the appellant in the absence of a finding that he was the tenant.¶52
The court held
Orders under s. 15 are primarily meant for the benefit of the tenant and presuppose that the Controller has jurisdiction to determine the issue of relationship; when the Controller made the deposit order under s. 15(1) and, on default, the order under sub-s. (7) of s. 15 striking out the defence, he must be deemed to have decided that the appellant was a tenant, the appellant having invited those orders for his benefit.ratio¶63
4.
Whether the one-day delay in preferring the appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal against the strike-out order ought to have been condoned, and whether the refusal of condonation was vitiated.¶52
The court held
Whether a delay of one day in preferring the appeal should have been condoned was a matter of discretion with the appellate authority, which this Court will not second-guess; in any event the question was of academic interest only, because the Tribunal also examined the appeal on merits and found no ground for interfering with the Rent Controller's order.ratio¶71

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and order dated May 31, 1962 of a learned single Judge of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi (S.A.O. No. 86-D of 1962) summarily dismissing the appellant's second appeal against the Rent Control Tribunal's order dated March 7, 1962 confirming the Additional Rent Controller's ex parte order of eviction.¶33
Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi · 1962-05-31
Prior proceeding
In 1955 the respondents instituted a civil suit for eviction of the All India Postal & R.M.S. Union, impleading the appellant as a party.¶35
Prior proceeding
Respondents' 1958 application to amend the plaint (claiming the building had been let to the appellant personally) was refused by the Subordinate Judge, who permitted withdrawal from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh one (year digit in date illegible in source).¶40
Prior proceeding
On February 25, 1960 respondents applied to the Rent Controller, Delhi, for eviction of the appellant alone under s. 14(1)(a) & (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (LIX of 1958), alleging persistent default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement for own residence; appellant denied his tenancy, asserting the Union was the tenant and he merely its licensee.¶40
Prior proceeding
On April 2, 1960 the Additional Rent Controller ordered the appellant to deposit arrears of rent from August 1, 1958 up-to-date at Rs. 50/- per month and future monthly rent month by month by the 15th of each following month.¶43
Prior proceeding
On May 16, 1961 the respondents applied under s. 15(7) of the Act for striking out the appellant's defence on the ground of failure to pay or deposit as directed.¶43
Prior proceeding
On July 26, 1961 the Additional Rent Controller ordered the appellant's defence to be struck out.¶43
Prior proceeding
The Additional Rent Controller passed an ex parte order of ejectment (dated July 17, 1961 per body text; described elsewhere as dated July 27, 1961), holding prima facie relationship of landlord and tenant established on certain rent receipts and the respondents' bona fide personal need established.¶43
Prior proceeding
Appeal against the defence strike-out order was made to the Rent Control Tribunal on September 15, 1961, late by one day.¶43
Prior proceeding
By order dated March 6, 1962 the Rent Control Tribunal dismissed that appeal as time-barred and also on merits.¶43
Prior proceeding
Appeal against the ex parte ejectment order was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on March 7, 1962.¶43
Prior proceeding
On May 28, 1962 the appellant filed a second appeal in the High Court of Punjab at Delhi against the Tribunal's order dated March 7, 1962; no second appeal was taken against the Tribunal's March 6, 1962 order dismissing the appeal regarding the strike-out of defence.¶43
Prior proceeding
The second appeal was dismissed summarily by a Single Judge on May 31, 1962.¶49
Prior proceeding
During the long vacation the appellant obtained special leave to appeal from the learned Vacation Judge on June 5, 1962.¶49