JUDGMENT
1. J.N. Goshal, respondent landlord, filed a petition for ejectment of the Appellant on the sole ground of non-payment of rent. During the pendency f the application for ejectment the rent Controller proceeded to decide the question of deposit off rent under section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and directed the tenants to deposit Rs.2750/- on account of arrears of rent for the period ended July, 1965, and future rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month by the 15th of each following month, Arrived by the said order the tenants filed an appeal before the Rent Control tribunal. The tribunal thought that the rent Controller had directed the tenants under section 15 of the said Act to deposit the arrears and future rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 200/- per month treating the same as standard rent.
The Tribunal was further of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, it was necessary for the Rent Controller to fix an interim rent for the premises and the tenants could be directed to pay the arrears and future rent only at the interim rate so fixed. The tribunal observed-
” It may be that the landlord had produced some documents which prima facie show that he had constructed the premises in 1961 and that for five years after the date of the first letting the rent at which the premises were first let was to be fixed as the standard rent under section 6(2) of the Act. The appellant has however nto admitted the date of construction of the premises or that the first letting was at the rate of Rs.200/- per mensem or the first letting was to him or that the agreed, rate at the time of first letting was Rs.200/- per mensem. The prtoection period of five years has also to run from the date of first letting which is a disputed fact in the present case Under the circumstances the learned rent Controller was nto justified in accepting the documents reduced by the landlord as conclusive evidence without giving the appellant a proper opportunity to rebut all this evidence. All that can be said is that in view of these documents the learned Rent Controller may have been justified on accepting the agreed rate as the interim rent for the duration of the proceedings but in that case the deposits made by the appellant in compliance with the order passed under section 15 would be subject to adjustment.
(2) With this observation the tribunal partly allowed the appeal and fixed Rs.200 per mensem as interim rent under section 16(3) of the said act. Section 15(3) of the Act reads as under ” If, any proceeding referred to in subsection (1) or sub-section (2) there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the controller, shall, within fifteen days of the date f the first hearing of the proceeding fix an interim rent in relation to the premises to be paid or deposit in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as the case may be, until the standard rent in relation thereto is fixed having regard to the provisions of this Act, and the amount of arrears, if any calculated on the basis of the standard rent shall be paid or deposited by the tenant within one month of the date on which the standard rent is fixed or such further time as the controller may allow in this behalf”
(3) To my mind it appears that the words “any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant” in sub-section (3) of section 15 refer to the dispute arising between the parties on amount of claim of party for fixation of standard :rent. The interim rent fixed under sub-section (3) of section 15 in accordance with the said provision, made adjustable on the basis of the standard rent ultimately fixed. If the dispute therefore be only as to the quantum and nto the standard rent section 15(3) will in my opinion, nto apply. The artificiality of the toher construction may best deceased demonstrated by the following example; Take a case where there is a controversy about the standard rent and the parties agree that the same is Rs. 100 per month. A dispute however, arises as to the amount die the landlord claiming Rs.2000 while the tenant maintaining that he had already aid Rs.1000 leaving a balance of Rs.1000 only. If that disputes between the parties is held to fall under section 15(3) the latter part of sub-section (3), as to the adjustment on the basis of standard rent will, in that event be reduced to silence. In that situation it will be impossible to give effect to the latter part of section 15(3) of the said Act. Sub-section (3) of section 15 in express terms contemplates fixation of an interim rent subject to adjustment on the basis of the standard rent fixed. In the circumstances in which no such adjustment is possible the controversy appears to be outside the pale of sub-section (3) of section 15 of the said Act.
There may be yet antoher category of cases where the parties are at variance buth regarding standard rent and the quantum of rent. In such cases the controller may fix an interim rent under section 15(3) and direct deposit or payment of arrears as well at the interim rate. It was suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant that in such cases no power inhered in the Controller to order payment or deposit or arrears of rent as section 15(3) was silent in that behalf as section 15(3) was silent in that behalf . In my opinion the words “… to be paid or deposited in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as the case may be….” are sufficient amplitude as to confer such a power. If the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants were to be accepted the result would be that by raising dispute as to the standard rent the tenant will be able to avid payments of arrears of rent. That would defeat the obvious intention of the Legislature and purpose of the Act.
If on the toher hand there is no dispute about the standard rent and the controversy is about the agreed rate of rent, the order of deposit will necessarily have to be made under section 15(1) and the rent last paid will taken as the rate of rent. In short the power to fix interim rent comes into lay only when there exists a dispute about standard rent. There is also no merit in Mr. Safeer’s contention that even when dispute relates to standard rent the power to order deposit of arrears can be exercised only under section 15(1) on the basis of the rent last paid. Mr. Safeer”s suggestion is that for ordering payment or deposit o f arrears the Controller should have fist determine the rent last paid about which there was disagreement between the parties and nto having done so the order suffered from a serious infirmity. I am afraid I cannto agree. As I have said earlier section 15(3) in terms confers power to order to payment or deposit of arrears at the interim rate of rent. If the disagreement between the parties be buth as to agreed rent and the standard rent, the power will be exercisable under section 15(3) because the standard rent will prevail over the agreed rent.
4) The above is my interpretation of the provisions of section 15 based on the reading of entire section 15 together in the light of the Scheme of the Act. In doing so I have followed the well-recognised principle that the language of a statute constitutes the depository or reservoir of the legislative intent and in order to ascertain or discover that intent the statute must be read as a whole and taken by its four corners. In this case there has been a controversy about the standard rent and the appeal has proceeded before me on the assumption that the claim for fixation of standard rent was properly made by the tenants. In that situation of tribunal rightly applied the provisions of the section 15(3) and rightly fixed the interim rent.
5) Mr. Safeer’s next grievance is that in the matter of fixation of interim rent the appellants had nto been given and adequate opportunity of being heard and this was done in disregard of the implied mandate of S. 15(3) and the express prescription of section 37. The same is his argument regarding the direction to deposit arrears. Mr. Safeer then contended that the appellants had raised a plea regarding deprivation of a part of tenanted premises and decision on this aspect has also been made without hearing. He drew my attention to certain observations of the Tribunal regarding the inadequate opportunity of being heard given to the appellants. I think the short answer to these argument is that there is ntohing on the record to show the appellants ever asked for an opportunity to lead evidence. But apart from that, the tribunal in fixing the intermittent and the arrears acted on sufficient material before it. The landlord had filed an affidavit claiming the rent due and specifying the period for which the tenants were in arrears. No affidavit was filed by the tenants denying that affidavit. The Tribunal also took ntoe of the rent deed dated 2-41964.
It appears that in the course of arguments the signatures of the tenants on that document were admitted and the Tribunal has so observed. If that were nto correct I should have expected an affidavit denying the correctness of the observation. None having been filed must presume that the observation is correct. The rent deed mentions Rs.200 per month as the rate of rent for the premises for which a suit has been filed. Again in the affidavit dated 19th May 1965, the landlord has stated that Rs.150/- were due for the month of June 1964 and no amount had been paid thereafter
In my opinion the Tribunal could legitimately act on this material and determine the interim rate of rent and the arrears. Regarding the argument of Mr. Safeer based on section 37 I am nto in agreement with Mr. Safeer that every party, who is likely to be prejudicial affected by the order, must be given a reasonable opportunity to read the entire evidence as required by section 37. Enquiry under section 15 is a summary one and the order is subject to adjustments as a result of the final decision section 15. Therefore provides a code by itself as to the nature of enquiry and to that extent would override section 37. This view finds support from a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in V.N. Vasudeva v Kirori Mal Luhariwala, , Under section 15(3) the controller is required to fix an interim rent within 15 days of the date of the first hearing of the proceedings. If this had to be done after a full-fledged enquiry, compliance with section 15(3) would become impossible. This by itself indicates that the authorities constituted under the Act are to make an enquiry in a summary manner. Of course, while doing so, they cannto act arbitrarily or without any material. But having regard to the circumstances of his case. I think the tribunal had sufficient material to come to the above conclusion
6) In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. The tenants willing the circumstances, deposit with the Controller within one month of the date of this order, the arrears of rent due by them up to 1st November, 1966, and also deposit with the Controller future rent, month by the 15th of each succeeding month at the rate fixed by the Tribunal. I have given this further time to the appellants having regard to the fact that an appeal is a continuation of the proceedings.
2. Appeal dismissed.