SMT. KAMLA DEVI versus SH. VASDEV

SMT. KAMLA DEVI versus SH. VASDEV

The power of the Rent Controller to strike out the defense of the tenant under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is discretionary and not mandatory; it must be exercised with application of mind to the facts of each case, and where delay is not intentional, condonation and grant of benefit under Section 14(2) are justified.

Parties
Appellant: Smt. Kamla Devi; Respondent: Sh. Vasdev
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 December 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Delhi High Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction for Non Payment of Rent, Striking Out Defense for Default, Condonation of Delay, Discretionary Powers of Rent Controller
Rent Control Tenancy Law Eviction for Non Payment of Rent Striking Out Defense for Default Condonation of Delay Discretionary Powers of Rent Controller

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. Kamla Devi

Appellant

Sh. Vasdev

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Delhi High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Rent Controller has discretionary power to condone tenant's delay in deposit of arrears under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
  2. 2 Whether the power to strike out tenant's defense for default is mandatory or discretionary under Section 15(7)

Ratio Decidendi

The power of the Rent Controller to strike out the defense of the tenant under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is discretionary and not mandatory; it must be exercised with application of mind to the facts of each case, and where delay is not intentional, condonation and grant of benefit under Section 14(2) are justified.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; benefit of Section 14(2) to tenant upheld; each party to bear its own costs.