SHANTI PRASAD JAIN (D) THROUGH LRS. versus PRAKASH NARAIN MATHUR

SHANTI PRASAD JAIN (D) THROUGH LRS. versus PRAKASH NARAIN MATHUR

The High Court rightly exercised its discretion in striking out the defence of the tenant/appellant under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and in rejecting the tenant’s application for condonation of delay in deposit of rent. The tenant’s default was willful and not sufficiently explained, the explanation offered being an afterthought lacking credible supporting evidence. The power to strike out defence under s.15(7) and condone delay is discretionary; there was no failure in such discretion by the High Court or Rent Controller.

Parties
Appellant/tenant: Shanti Prasad Jain (D) through LRs.; Respondent/landlord: Prakash Narain Mathur
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 31.01.2008 of High Court of Delhi in C.m. (main) No.50 of 2005
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Striking Out Defence of Tenant, Condonation of Delay in Deposit of Rent, Arrears of Rent, Discretion of Court Under Delhi Rent Control Act S. 15(7)
Landlord and Tenant Rent Control Striking Out Defence of Tenant Condonation of Delay in Deposit of Rent Arrears of Rent Discretion of Court Under Delhi Rent Control Act S. 15(7)

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shanti Prasad Jain (D) through LRs.

Appellant/tenant

Prakash Narain Mathur

Respondent/landlord

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 31.01.2008 of High Court of Delhi in C.m. (main) No.50 of 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in striking out the defence of the tenant under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and rejecting the application for condonation of delay in depositing rent.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court rightly exercised its discretion in striking out the defence of the tenant/appellant under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and in rejecting the tenant’s application for condonation of delay in deposit of rent. The tenant’s default was willful and not sufficiently explained, the explanation offered being an afterthought lacking credible supporting evidence. The power to strike out defence under s.15(7) and condone delay is discretionary; there was no failure in such discretion by the High Court or Rent Controller.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No interference with the High Court’s order striking out the tenant’s defence and rejecting the condonation of delay application.
  • No order as to costs.