HEM CHAND versus THE DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD.

HEM CHAND versus THE DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD.

Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 does not make it mandatory for the Rent Controller to strike out the tenant’s defence on non-compliance; 'may' is deliberately used. The Rent Controller has no power to extend time under section 15(1). On default, the hearing must continue, and if the defence is struck out, the tenant proceeds without defence; if not, tenant gets an opportunity to be heard.

Parties
Appellant/tenant: Hem Chand; Respondent/landlord: Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd.; Intervener: Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 August 1977
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions / Supreme Court (appeal and Remand From High Court/tribunal Orders)
Outcome
Appeals partly allowed (main appeal allowed, others remitted or dismissed as indicated)
Legal Topics
Eviction for Non Payment of Rent, Striking Out Defence, Discretion Under Rent Act, Delay in Rent Deposit
Rent Control Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Eviction for Non Payment of Rent Striking Out Defence Discretion Under Rent Act Delay in Rent Deposit

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hem Chand

Appellant/tenant

Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd.

Respondent/landlord

Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions / Supreme Court (appeal and Remand From High Court/tribunal Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Rent Controller has discretion to extend time under section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
  2. 2 Whether the non-compliance with section 15(1) mandates eviction without further hearing
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'may' in section 15(7): mandatory or discretionary

Ratio Decidendi

Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 does not make it mandatory for the Rent Controller to strike out the tenant’s defence on non-compliance; 'may' is deliberately used. The Rent Controller has no power to extend time under section 15(1). On default, the hearing must continue, and if the defence is struck out, the tenant proceeds without defence; if not, tenant gets an opportunity to be heard.

Court Disposition

Appeals partly allowed (main appeal allowed, others remitted or dismissed as indicated)

Orders

  • Matter remitted to High Court to dispose of landlord's appeals afresh in accordance with law and this judgment.
  • If High Court finds defence was properly struck out, appeals by landlord to be allowed and recovery of possession ordered; if not, remand to Rent Controller for fresh decision after hearing tenant.