Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – Delay in depositing arrears of rent and mesne profits – Application for extension of time and condonation of delay – In the instant case, Tribunal granted eviction decree on 05.04.2014 on the ground of arrears of rent with direction to the appellant-tenant to vacate the premises within six months – On writ petition, High Court ordered tenant to deposit arrears of rent before 31.12.2017 and mesne profits w.e.f. 01.11.2017 – Appellant could not deposit the arrears of rent within prescribed time – Application for extension of time to deposit rent stood dismissed on 15.01.2018 – Meanwhile landlady had filed application for execution of decree of arrears of rent wherein the tenant deposited the amount on 12.01.2018 in court and the said amount was handed over to the landlady on 15.01.2018 and court recorded full satisfaction of landlady and the file was consigned – However, High Court dismissed the prayer for condoning the delay in depositing the amount in writ petition filed by the appellant – Hence the appeals – Held: 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 – High Court did not consider that a substantial amount in pursuance of order of the High Court in execution proceedings was deposited on 12.01.2018 that is before passing order of the High Court on the application for extension of time which fact was a relevant fact – Order dated 15.01.2018 was passed in ignorance of the said fact – Order dated 15.01.2018 does not advance substantial justice and is set aside – Similarly, an amount of Rs.33000/- was deposited on 15.01.2018 directly in the bank account of landlady which according to appellant was rent for 11 months and condonation of delay was sought which was rejected on 27.02.2018 – The circumstance that in execution proceedings the amount was deposited and accepted by landlady was a relevant fact for condonation of delay in depositing the amount – Order dated 27.02.2018 is also set aside – Rent Control. Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – Plea of respondent that there was non-compliance of Order dated 05.04.2014 as in the said order after six months from the order, the deposit was to be made three times of the rent – Held: Plea not sustainable – Order dated 05.04.2014 indicated that the direction was that if the tenant does not evacuate the premises within 6 months from the date of issue of certificate of re-possession, he shall be responsible to pay 3 times rent to the landlady – The order dated 05.04.2014 itself mentions that the liability to pay three 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 re-possession was issued – Secondly, the order made by the Rent Tribunal as well as Rent Appellate Tribunal stood superseded by the order of the High Court dated 01.11.2017 which was passed with the consent of both the parties – High Court in its order dated 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 for the respondent – Appellant is directed to be put back in possession of the premises – The appellant shall continue to deposit the mesne profit as per order of the High Court dated 01.11.2017 and in the event of any default committed by the appellant, it shall be open for the respondent-landlady to take appropriate proceedings against the appellant.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.