Holding

The arrears of rent under s.14(1)(a) are limited to the rent demanded by the notice; rent that becomes due after the notice is not part of the arrears, and tender of the demanded arrears within two months fulfills the ground for eviction.

Summary

The appellant, a landlady, let premises to the respondent, a tenant, on a rent payable in advance. The tenant fell into arrears for April and May 1976 and was served a notice of demand on 7 May 1976. He tendered two bank drafts covering the rent for April (13 May) and May (11 June), which the landlady refused to accept, arguing that rent accruing after the notice (June) also had to be tendered within the two‑month period. The Rent Control Tribunal held the tenant in default, but the Delhi High Court reversed, interpreting s.14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 to mean that arrears are only those rent due at the date of the notice. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, holding that arrears cannot be extended to rent falling due after service of the notice and that tender of the demanded arrears within two months satisfies the statutory ground for eviction. Consequently, the appeal by the landlady was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether s.14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 requires the tenant to tender rent that falls due after the notice of demand is served.
Whether the tenant's tender of rent covering only the arrears specified in the notice satisfies the statutory ground for eviction.

Legislation cited

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 14(1)(a), s. 14(2)

Subjects

evictionrent arrearsDelhi Rent Control Actnotice of demandtender of rentlandlord-tenantadvance rentstatutory interpretation

Judgment

SMT. PRAKASH MEHRA
A
v.
K.L. MALHOTRA

APRIL 27, 1989

B [R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND S. NATARAJAN, J.]

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: s. 14(1)(a)-Eviction-Noticet/
demand for arrears of rent-Satisfaction of-Held, arrears of rent due
cannot be extended to rent falling due after service of notice.
"
•
The respondent-tenant fell into arrears of rent for two months
c consecutively. The rent was payable in advance. He was served with a
notice of demand, within seven days of which he sent a bank draft-l -
purporting to be the rent for the first month, and within a month
another bank draft for the like amount. The landlady neither encashed
nor returned them. After the notice period she filed an application for
D his ejectment.

The ,Rent Controller held that the tenant was not in default. The
Tribunal, however, found that when the notice of demand was served
the arrears of rent for the two months had arisen, that the bank draft k-
sent thereafter related to the rent for the first month only, that as the
E rent for the second month had also become due but had not been
tendered, the landlady was justified in not accepting the tender, and
that when the respondent again sent a draft for the second month the
rent for the third month had also fallen due but was not tendered. It
thus took the view that the respondent had not tendered the arrears of
rent due up-to-date within two months of the notice of demand, and
'F held that the ground of non-payment of rent stood established.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court took the view thats. 14(1)(.
of the Delhi Rent Controll Act, 1958 made out a ground for evictio
only where the tenant had neither paid nor tendered the whole of th
arrears of rent legally recoverable from him wi_thirt two months of the
G date on which a notice of demand was served "iHI hlm by the landlord,·
the arrears beinii the rent due on the date of the notice. As in the·
instant case, the notice called for payment of the arrears due for the two·
months and the bank drafts were tendered within the period indicated ·
in the notice, the notice was satisfied.

H Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court,
744
SMT. PRAKASH MEHRA v. K.L. MALHOTRA 745

HELD: The arrears of rent envisaged hy s. 14(l)(a) of the Delhi
A
Rent Control Act are the arrears demanded by the notice for payment.
The arrears of rent due cannot be extended to rent which has fallen due
after service of the notice .. [747DE]

In the instant case, the two bank drafts representing the arrears.
of rent covered by the notice of demand had been tendered within two B
months of the date of service of the notice. The High Court was, there-
fore, right in the view taken by it. [747DE]

Jag Ram Nathu Ram v. Shri Surinder Kumar, S.A.O. No. 52 of
1975 and S.L. Kapur v. Dr. Mrs. P.D. Lal, All India Rent Control
Journal, [1975] ;322, overruled.
c
CIV:IL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3119
of 1984. · ·

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.9.1982 of the Delhi High .
Court in S.A.O. No. 181of1979. D

Dr. Y.S. Chitale and Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant.

R.K. Garg, Gopal Singh, L.R. Singh and Mrs. Vimal Sinha for
the Respondent.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:

PATHAK, CJ; This is a landlady's appeal by special leave
arising out of proceedings for the ejectment of the responttent-tenant.

The appellant let out the premises in suit to the r~spondent on 1 F
September, 1962, the rent being stipulated as payable in advance.
With effect from 1 January, 1972 the rent payable was Rs. 515 per
month. On 29 November, 197'2, the contractual tenancy was deter-
mined by notice. The respondent received a notice on 7 May,, 1976
calling upon him to pay the arrears of.rent. The rent in fact had been
received upto 31 March, 1976 and, therefore, when the notice of G
demand was served on the appellant, rent for the months of April and
May 1976 had fallen due. The rent was payable in advance.

On 13 May, 1976, the respondent offered a bank draft of Rs.515
to the apellant. The appellant refused to accept it. Two days later, the
respondent sent the same bank draft by registe.red post. The appellant H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.

received the bank draft and retained it. On 7 June, 1976, the appellant
A wrote to the respondent informing him that his tender was not v.alid.
On 11 June, 1976, the appellant sent another bank draft for Rs.515 to
the landlady, and this draft again was neither encashed nor returned.

On 2 August, 1976, the appellant filed an application for eject-
B ment out of which the present appeal arises. After filing the applica- '--...:
tion for ejectment, the appellant informed the respondent that both \
the bank drafts sent by him were lying uncashed. i
The Additional Controller, Delhi, dismissed the eviction petition
holding that the tenant was not in default. The Rent Control Tribunal,
..
Delhi, noted that the rent was payable in advance in accordance with
c the agreement between the parties, that the respondent had earlier
enjoyed the benefit of section 14(2) of the Act, that when the notice of
demand was served on 7 May, 1976 the arrears of rent for the months
of April and May 1976 had arisen, that the bank draft sent on 13 May,
1976 related to the rent of April 1976 only, that as the rent tor the
D month of May 1976 had also become dne but had not been tendered,
the landlady was justified in not accepting the tender, and that when
the respondent again sent a draft on 11 June, 1976 to cover the rent for
the month of May 1976 the rent for the month of June 1976 had also
fallen due but was not tendered. Holding that the respondent had not
tendered the arrears of rent due up-to-date within two months of the
E notice of demand, the Tribunal held that the ground of non-payment
of rent stood established. The Tribunal noted that the rent had not ,.
been paid for the months of April, May and June 1976 in advance for ...
each month and, therefore, the respondent had committed three
consecutive defaults. That being so, the Tribunal observed, the
respondent was not entitled to the benefit of s. 14(2) again.
F
In second apeal, the High_ Court reversed the decision of the
Rent Control Tribunal and dismissed the application for ejectment
upon the finding that the notice demanding the arrears of rent related
to the months of April and May i976, and as one draft had been sent
on 13 May, 1976 and another on I I June, 1976 representing a total of
G two months' rent, and as this rent had been paid within two months of
the service of notice of demand, it must be taken that the rent due at
the time of the service of notice of demand had been tendered by tbe
r:- •I

respondent to the appelJant. The High Court proceeded on the view
that s. 14( l)(a) of the Act made out a ground for eviction only where
the tenant had neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of
H rent legally recoverab!e from him within two months of the date on
SMT. PRAKASH MEHRA 1•. K.L. MALHOTRA [PATHAK, CJ] 747

1 which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent was served on him by A
the landlord, the arrears being the rent due on the date of the notice.
In this case, the High Court said, as the notice called for payment of
the arrears due for the months of April and May 1976 and the bank
drafts were tendered within the period indicated in the notice, the
notice was satisfied and no default could be said to have been commit-
B
r
. , ted in terms of s. 14(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, the High Court
allowed the appeal and dismissed the application for ejectment.
'J:
It is urged before usby learned counsel for the appellant that s.
14(1)(a) of the Act contemplates the payment or tender of the whole
of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from the tenant on the date
when the demand notice is sent including the rent which has accrued c
after service of the demand notice. When the notice was sent on 7 May,
1976, rent for the months of April and May 1976 had become due, and
as two months was given for payment of the arrears, it would include
also the rent which had accrued during the said period of two months.
We are not satisfied that there is substance in the contention. The
·arrears of rent envisaged by s. 14(1)(a) of the Act are the arrears D
demanded by the notice for payment of arrears cif rent. The arrears
due cannot be extended to rent which has fallen due after service of the
notice of demand. In this case, the two bank drafts representing the
--~ arrears of rent covered by the notice of demand had been tendered
within two months of the date of service of the notice of demand. The
High Court is right in the view taken by it. We are not satisfied that the E
construction placed by B.C. Misra, J. in Jag Ram Nathu Ram v. Shri
Surinder Kumar, S.A.O. No. 52 of 1975 decided on 28 April, 1976 and
in S.L. Kapur v. Dr. Mrs. P.D. Lal, All India Rent Control Journal
1975 p. 322 lays down the correct law on the point.

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed but there is no
order as to costs.

P.S.S. Appeal_dismissed.