{"id":183054,"date":"1994-12-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-12-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994"},"modified":"2015-09-14T01:22:01","modified_gmt":"2015-09-13T19:52:01","slug":"kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994","title":{"rendered":"Kamla Devi vs Vasdev on 14 December, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kamla Devi vs Vasdev on 14 December, 1994<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 985, \t\t 1995 SCC (1) 356<\/div>\n
Author: S Sen<\/div>\n
Bench: Sen, S.C. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKAMLA DEVI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVASDEV\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/12\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nSEN, S.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nSEN, S.C. (J)\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 AIR  985\t\t  1995 SCC  (1) 356\n JT 1995 (1)   142\t  1994 SCALE  (5)295\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSEN, J.- Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.This\tappeal is against an order passed by the Delhi\tHigh
\nCourt  on  5-9-1989, declining to interfere  with  an  order
\npassed by the Rent Control Tribunal dated 30-5-1989.\n<\/p>\n
3.The  appellant, Smt Kamla Devi, is the owner of  Shop\t No.
\n408,  Pandit Lila Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New\tDelhi.\t The
\nshop was let out to the respondent, The respondent defaulted
\nin  payment of rent.  The appellant sent a demand notice  on
\n18-5-1981  upon\t the respondent for recovery of\t arrears  of
\nrent.  The respondent neither paid nor tendered the  arrears
\nof rent within the period of two months after the service of
\nthe  demand  notice.  On or about  2-8-1982,  the  appellant
\nfiled  an eviction petition under clause (a)  of  subsection
\n(1)  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.\t  It
\nwas admitted in the written statement that rent was due from
\n1-1-1980.   On\t27-1-1984 the  Additional  Rent\t Controller,
\nDelhi, passed an order to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “I direct the respondent to pay or deposit the
\n\t      entire arrears of rent @ Rs 50 w.e.f. 1-1-1980
\n\t      within one month of the passing of this  order
\n\t      and continue to pay or deposit the  subsequent
\n\t      rent   month  by\tmonth  the  15th   of\teach
\n\t      succeeding   month.   Case  to  come  up\t for
\n\t      parties’ evidence on 18-3-1984.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      358<\/span><\/p>\n
4.   Thereafter\t the respondent paid a sum of Rs 500 to\t the
\nappellant promising to pay the arrears before expiry of\t the
\nperiod\tstipulated in the order.  The  respondent,  however,
\ndid  not  pay  the arrears as promised.\t  On  11-4-1984\t the
\nappellant  filed  an application under\tsub-section  (7)  of
\nSection 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for  striking
\nout  the  defence  and to proceed with the  hearing  of\t the
\napplication on the ground that the tenant had failed to make
\npayment or any deposit of the arrears of rent.\n<\/p>\n
\t      5.    The\t Additional Rent  Controller  passed
\n\t      the following order:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Since  the  respondent failed to\t comply\t the
\n\t      order dated 27-1-1984 under Section 15(1),  he
\n\t      was  not\tentitled to  benefit  under  Section
\n\t      14(2) of the Act and as such he was liable  to
\n\t      suffer straight eviction order.\tAccordingly,
\n\t      an  eviction order is passed in favour of\t the
\n\t      petitioner  and  against\tthe  respondent\t  in
\n\t      respect  of shop bearing No. 408, situated  at
\n\t      Lila  Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New  Delhi,  as
\n\t      shown red in the site plan, Ex.  RW 1\/2.”\n<\/p>\n
6.   On\t appeal, the Tribunal remanded the case back to\t the
\nRent Controller to consider whether the delay in deposit  of
\narrears\t of  rent  amounting  to Rs 2150  is  liable  to  be
\ncondoned  or  not  before  deciding  whether  the  appellant
\ndeserves to get the benefit of Section 14(2) or has rendered
\nhimself liable to be evicted.\n<\/p>\n
7.   On\t remand, the Additional Rent Controller held,  inter
\nalia,  that there was some compromise between  the  parties.
\nIn  any case, the delay in depositing Rs 2150 could  not  be
\ntermed as wilful, deliberate and contumacious non-compliance
\nof  order  under  Section 15(1) passed\ton  27-1-1984.\t The
\nlandlord was entitled at the most to some compensation.\t  In
\nthe  premises, the Additional Rent Controller  condoned\t the
\ndelay in depositing Rs 2150 by the tenant.  It was held that
\nthe  respondent\t was  entitled to get  the  benefit  of\t the
\nprovisions of Section 14(2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Kamla Devi, appealed to the Tribunal.  The only  ground
\nurged  before the Tribunal was that there was no reason\t for
\ncondonation of the delay and the Additional Rent  Controller
\nshould\thave struck out the defence of the respondent.\t The
\nTribunal  held after review of the facts that the  order  of
\nstriking  out the defence was uncalled for.  The tenant\t was
\nrightly\t given the benefit of Section 14(2) of the  Act,  it
\nbeing a case of first default.\n<\/p>\n
9.   Kamla  Devi  made a further appeal to  the\t High  Court
\nwhich was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
10.  Kamla Devi has now come up to this Court.\tIt has\tbeen
\ncontended  on her behalf that in view of the fact  that\t the
\nrespondent neither took any step to deposit arrears of\trent
\nnor  for extension of time within one month of the order  of
\nthe Rent Controller under Section 15(1) of the Act, the Rent
\nController  did not have any discretionary power to  condone
\nthe delay under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
\nIt  was obligatory for the tenant to deposit the arrears  of
\nrent within one month from the date of passing of the  order
\nof   the  Rent\tController.   It  was  contended  that\t the
\nprovisions of
\n359<\/span>
\nSection\t 14(1)(a),  Section 15(1) and Section 15(7)  of\t the
\nDelhi\tRent   Control\tAct  have  been\t  misconstrued\t and
\nmisunderstood.\n<\/p>\n
11.  Before examining the contentions made on behalf of\t the
\nappellant,   it\t is  necessary\tto  set\t out  the   relevant
\nprovisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act:\n<\/p>\n
\t       ” 14. Protection of tenant against eviction.-
\n\t      (1)   Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
\n\t      contained\t in  any other law or  contract,  no
\n\t      order or decree for the recovery of possession
\n\t      of any premises shall be made by any court  or
\n\t      Controller in favour of the landlord against a
\n\t      tenant:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided\tthat  the  Controller  may,  on\t  an
\n\t      application  made\t to him\t in  the  prescribed
\n\t      manner,  make  an order for  the\trecovery  of
\n\t      possession  of the premises on one or more  of
\n\t      the following grounds only, namely-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   that  the  tenant has neither  paid\t nor
\n\t      tendered the whole of the arrears of the\trent
\n\t      legally recoverable from him within two months
\n\t      of  the date on which a notice of\t demand\t for
\n\t      the arrears of rent has been served on him  by
\n\t      the landlord in the manner provided in Section
\n\t      106  of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882  (4
\n\t      of 1882);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       *\t\t *\t\t     *
\n(2)  No order for the recovery of possession of any premises
\nshall be made on    the\t ground specified in clause  (a)  of
\nthe proviso to sub-section (1), if the tenant makes  payment
\nor deposit as required by Section 15:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Provided  that\tno tenant shall be entitled to\tthe  benefit
\nunder this subsection, if, having obtained such benefit once
\nin respect of any premises, he again makes a default in\t the
\npayment\t of  rent of those premises  for  three\t consecutive
\nmonths.\n<\/p>\n
*\t\t       *\t\t\t     *\n<\/p>\n
15.  When a tenant can get the benefit of protection against
\neviction.-  (1)\t In  every proceeding for  the\trecovery  of
\npossession of any premises on the ground specified in clause\n<\/p>\n
(a)  of\t the proviso to subsection (1) of  Section  14,\t the
\nController shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of
\nbeing  heard, make an order directing the tenant to  pay  to
\nthe landlord or deposit with the Controller within one month
\nof  the date of the order, an amount calculated at the\trate
\nof  rent at which it was last paid for the period for  which
\nthe  arrears of the rent were legally recoverable  from\t the
\ntenant including the period subsequent thereto up to the end
\nof the month previous to that in which payment or deposit is
\nmade  and to continue to pay or deposit, month by month,  by
\nthe fifteenth of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent  to
\nthe rent at that rate.\n<\/p>\n
(7)  If\t a  tenant  fails  to make  payment  or\t deposit  as
\nrequired  by  this  section, the Controller  may  order\t the
\ndefence\t against eviction to be struck out and proceed\twith
\nthe hearing of the application.”\n<\/p>\n
360<\/span><\/p>\n
12.  The  scheme  of  the Act appears to be  that  a  tenant
\ncannot\tbe evicted except on any one of the grounds set\t out
\nin  clauses (a) to (1) of Section 14(1).  If a tenant  is  a
\ndefaulter  in  payment\tof  rent, even\tthen  an  order\t for
\nrecovery of possession of the tenanted premises shall not be
\nmade straightaway.  The requirement of Section 15(1) is that
\nthe Controller will make the order directing tile defaulting
\ntenant to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Controller
\nwithin\tone month of the date of the order, tile  amount  of
\nrent  in  arrear and continue to pay or\t deposit,  month  by
\nmonth,\tby  the fifteenth of each succeeding  month,  a\t sum
\nequivalent  to the rent at that rate.  If the  tenant,\teven
\nafter this order under Section 15(1), falls to carry out the
\ndirection  of the Controller, the Controller may  order\t the
\ndefence\t against eviction to be struck out and proceed\twith
\nthe hearing of the application.\n<\/p>\n
13.  It\t has been contended on behalf of the appellant\tthat
\nonce there is a failure oil the part of the tenant to  carry
\nOut  the  direction given by the  Controller  under  Section
\n15(1) of the Act, the tenant is not entitled to any  further
\nopportunity  to\t pay  in terms of  the\torder  passed  under
\nSection\t 15(1) and the landlord is entitled straightaway  to
\nan  order  for striking out the defence of  the\t tenant\t and
\nconsequently an order for eviction of the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
14.  In\t support of this contention Our attention was  drawn
\nto  a number of cases which have dealt with this  aspect  of
\nthe  matter. In\t the case of Hem Chand v.  Delhi  Cloth\t &
\nGeneral\t Mills Co. Ltd.1 the<\/a> landlord filed  an\t application
\nfor  eviction  of the tenant under Section 14 of  the  Delhi
\nRent  Control Act on the grounds of non-payment of rent\t and
\nalso   unauthorised   sub-letting.   The   Additional\tRent
\nController  on\treceipt of the application of  the  landlord
\npassed\tan  order  under Section 15( 1) of  the\t Delhi\tRent
\nControl Act, directing the tenant to deposit the arrears  of
\nrent  within  a\t month\tand  thereafter\t deposit  an  amount
\nequivalent  to\tthe  rent  month by  month.   There  was  an
\nassurance  on  the  part of the tenant to  comply  with\t the
\ndirection  fully.   The landlord made an  application  under
\nSection 15(7) of the Act and prayed that the defence of\t the
\nappellant  against  eviction  be struck\t out.\tThe  tenant,
\nthereafter,  deposited the entire amount of rent due  up  to
\ndate.\tOn 15-10-1965 the Additional Rent Controller  struck
\nout  the defence of the tenant stating that on the  date  of
\nthe  order there were arrears of rent.\tThe Additional\tRent
\nController also passed an order of eviction on the ground of
\nsub-letting.   He, however, declined to pass any  order\t for
\neviction  on the ground of nonpayment of rent,\tbecause\t the
\ntenant had already deposited the arrears of rent on the date
\nwhen  the  defence  was struck out.   On  appeal,  the\tRent
\nControl\t Tribunal decided that the defence should  not\thave
\nbeen struck in the facts of that case and remanded the\tcase
\nfor  reconsideration  on  the  point  of  Subletting.  The
\nlandlord  appealed  to\tDelhi  High  Court.   The  case\t was
\nreferred  to a Full Bench.  The Full Bench held that when  a
\ntenant defaulted in making deposit or payment under  Section
\n15  of\tthe Act, the Rent Controller was bound\tto  pass  an
\norder  for recovery of the possession and could\t not  refuse
\nthe  landlord’s prayer for eviction.  It was  further  field
\nthat the Rent Controller
\n1 (1977) 3 SCC 483
\n361<\/span>
\nhad no right to condone the delay, if any, in making payment
\naccording to the requirements of Section 15(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
15.  On further appeal, it was held by a Bench of two Judges
\nof this Court: (SCC pp. 488-489, para 8)
\n\t      “While  we  agree with the view  of  the\tFull
\n\t      Bench  that  the Controller has  no  power  to
\n\t      condone  the  failure  of the  tenant  to\t pay
\n\t      arrears  of  rent as  required  under  Section
\n\t      15(1),  we are satisfied that the\t Full  Bench
\n\t      fell  into an error in holding that the  right
\n\t      to obtain an order for recovery of  possession
\n\t      accrued  to the landlord.\t As we have set\t out
\n\t      earlier in the event of the tenant failing  to
\n\t\t\t    comply with the order under Section 15(1)  the
\n\t      application  will have to be heard  giving  an
\n\t      opportunity  to the tenant if his\t defence  is
\n\t      not struck out under Section 15(7) and without
\n\t      hearing  the tenant if his defence  is  struck
\n\t      out.  The Full Bench is therefore ill error in
\n\t      allowing\tthe application of the\tlandlord  on
\n\t      the  basis  of the failure of  the  tenant  to
\n\t      comply with an order under Section 15( 1).”\n<\/p>\n
16.  On\t behalf of the appellant it has been contended\tthat
\nthis is a clear authority for the proposition that under the
\nprovisions   of\t the  Delhi  Rent  Control  Act,  the\tRent
\nController has no power to condone the failure of the tenant
\nto  pay arrears of rent as required under Section  15(1)  of
\nthe Delhi Rent Control Act.  The judgment in the case of Ram
\nMurti  v.  Bhola  Nath<\/a> 2 which took  a\tcontrary  view,\t was
\nwrongly\t decided  by another Bench of two Judges.   In\tthat
\ncase,  reliance\t was wrongly placed on the judgment  in\t the
\ncase  of  Shyamcharan  Sharma v.  Dharamdas3  in  which\t the
\nprovisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control\tAct,
\n1961 fell for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
17.  We are unable to uphold this contention.  In our  view,
\nit  is not obligatory for the Rent Controller to strike\t out
\nthe  defence of the tenant under Section 15(7) of the  Delhi
\nAct,  if  the  tenant fails to make payment  or\t deposit  as
\ndirected  by  an  order passed\tunder  Section\t15(1).\t The
\nlanguage  of  sub-section  (7) of Section 15  is  that\t“the
\nController  may\t order the defence against  eviction  to  be
\nstruck\tout”.\tThat clearly means, the\t Controller,  ‘in  a
\ngiven case, may not pass such an order.\t It must depend upon
\nthe  facts of the case and the discretion of the  Controller
\nwhether such a drastic order should or should not be passed.\n<\/p>\n
18.  The position in law, in the event of a tenant’s failure
\nto  comply  with an order under Section 15(1) of  the  Delhi
\nRent  Control Act or similar provisions of other Rent  Acts,
\nhas been examined in several other decisions of this  Court.
\nIt is true that the case of Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas3
\nwas   decided  under  the  provisions  of   Madhya   Pradesh
\nAccommodation  Control Act, 1961 but the provisions of\tthat
\nAct  relating  to eviction of tenants were  similar  to\t the
\ncorresponding  provisions  of Delhi Rent Control  Act.\t The
\nrelevant provisions of Madhya Pradesh Act are:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “12.  Restriction on eviction of tenants.- (1)
\n\t      Notwithstanding\tanything  to  the   contrary
\n\t      contained\t in  any other law or  contract,  no
\n\t      suit
\n\t      2 (1984) 3 SCC 111
\n\t      3 (1980) 2 SCC 151
\n\t      362<\/span>
\n\t      shall  be filed in any Civil Court  against  a
\n\t      tenant for his eviction from any accommodation
\n\t      except on one or more of the following grounds
\n\t      only, namely:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   that  the  tenant has neither  paid\t nor
\n\t      tendered the whole of the arrears of the\trent
\n\t      legally recoverable from him within two months
\n\t      of  the date on which a notice of\t demand\t for
\n\t      the arrears of rent has been served on him  by
\n\t      the landlord in the prescribed manner
\n\t      *\t\t\t *\t\t      *
\n\t      (3)   No\torder for the eviction of  a  tenant
\n\t      shall  be\t made  on the  ground  specified  in
\n\t      clause  (a) of sub-section (1), if the  tenant
\n\t      makes  payment  or  deposit  as  required\t  by
\n\t      Section 13:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      13.   When   tenant   can\t  get\tbenefit\t  of
\n\t      protection against eviction.- (1) On a suit or
\n\t      proceeding being instituted by the landlord on
\n\t      any of the grounds referred to in Section\t 12,
\n\t      the  tenant  shall, within one  month  of\t the
\n\t      service  of writ of summons on him  or  within
\n\t      such  further  time as the Court\tmay,  on  an
\n\t      application made to it, allow in this  behalf,
\n\t      deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord an
\n\t      amount calculated at the rate of rent at which
\n\t      it  was  paid, for the period  for  which\t the
\n\t      tenant  may  have made default  including\t the
\n\t      period subsequent thereto up to the end of the
\n\t      month previous to that in which the deposit or
\n\t      payment is made and shall thereafter  continue
\n\t      to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th
\n\t      of  each succeeding month a sum equivalent  to
\n\t      the rent at that rate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      *\t\t*\t\t      *
\n\t      (5)   If a tenant makes deposit or payment  as
\n\t      required\tby sub-section (1),  or\t sub-section
\n\t      (2)  no decree or order shall be made  by\t the
\n\t      Court  for the recovery of possession  of\t the
\n\t      accommodation on the ground of default in\t the
\n\t      payment  of rent by the tenant, but the  Court
\n\t      may allow such cost as it may deem fit to\t the
\n\t      landlord.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (6)   If a tenant fails to deposit or pay\t any
\n\t      amount as required by this section, the
\n\t      Court  may order the defence against  eviction
\n\t      to  be struck out and shall proceed  with\t the
\n\t      hearing of the suit.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      19.   In\tShyamcharan Sharma case3 a Bench  of
\n\t      three Judges of this Court held:\t  (SCC\t  p.
\n\t      154, para 4)
\n\t      “We  think  that\tSection\t 13  quite   clearly
\n\t      confers a discretion, on the court, to  strike
\n\t      out  or  not  to strike out  the\tdefence,  if
\n\t      default is made in deposit or payment of\trent
\n\t      as  required by Section 13(1).  If  the  court
\n\t      has  the\tdiscretion  not to  strike  out\t the
\n\t      defence  of  a tenant  committing\t default  in
\n\t      payment  or  deposit as  required\t by  Section
\n\t      13(1),  the  court  surely  has  the   further
\n\t      discretion  to condone the default and  extend
\n\t      the  time\t for  payment or  deposit.   Such  a
\n\t      discretion  is a necessary implication of\t the
\n\t      discretion not to strike out the defence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      363<\/span><\/p>\n
20.  On\t behalf of the appellant it has been contended\tthat
\nthe principles laid down in this case should not be extended
\nto  a case governed by the provisions of Delhi Rent  Control
\nAct.   We do not find any material distinction\tbetween\t the
\nprovisions of Section 12(1), (3) and Section 13(1), (5)\t and
\n(6)  of\t the  Madhya  Pradesh  Act  and\t the   corresponding
\nprovisions  of Section 14(1), (2) and Section 15(1), (7)  of
\nthe  Delhi Act.\t In fact this argument was rejected  in\t the
\ncase of Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath2.  In<\/a> that case,  construing
\nthe  provisions of the Delhi Act, it was held  that  Section
\n15(7) conferred a discretionary power on the Rent Controller
\nto  strike  out the defence of the tenant.  That  being\t the
\nposition,  the\tRent Controller had, by\t legal\timplication,
\npower  to condone the default on the part of the  tenant  in
\nmaking\tpayment or deposit of future rent or to extend\ttime
\nfor such period or deposit.  It was held: (SCC pp.  118-119,
\npara 11)
\n\t      “With  respect, the observations in Hem  Chand
\n\t      case1  expressing\t the  view  that  the\tRent
\n\t      Controller  has  no power to extend  the\ttime
\n\t      prescribed   in\tSection\t 15(1)\t cannot\t  be
\n\t      construed to mean that he is under a statutory
\n\t      obligation  to pass an order for\teviction  of
\n\t      the  tenant  under  Section  14(1)(a)  without
\n\t      anything\tmore due to the failure on his\tpart
\n\t      to  comply  with the requirements\t of  Section
\n\t      15(1).  The question would still remain as  to
\n\t      the   course  to\tbe  adopted  by\t  the\tRent
\n\t      Controller in such a situation in the  context
\n\t      of  Section  15(7) which confers on  the\tRent
\n\t      Controller a discretion not to strike out\t the
\n\t      defence  of  the tenant ‘In the event  of\t the
\n\t      contingency occurring, namely, failure on\t the
\n\t      part   of\t  the  tenant  to  meet\t  with\t the
\n\t      requirements of Section 15(1).”\n<\/p>\n
21.  In coming to this conclusion reliance was placed on the
\ndecision  in the case of Shyamcharan Sharma case3.   It\t was
\nargued\ton behalf of the respondent that Shyamcharan  Sharma
\ncase3  was  decided under the Madhya  Pradesh  Accommodation
\nControl\t Act, 1961 which had a different  scheme  altogether
\nand  had  no application to a case to be decided  under\t the
\nprovisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act.  This argument was
\nrepelled by pointing out in that judgment that the scheme of
\nthe  Madhya  Pradesh  Accommodation Control  Act,  1961\t was
\nalmost\tsimilar to that of the Delhi Act with regard to\t the
\nclaim of the landlord for eviction of the tenant on  failure
\nto pay rent.  The only difference was that under the  Madhya
\nPradesh\t Act the landlord had to bring a suit  for  eviction
\nbefore\ta Civil Court under Section 12(1)(a), whereas  under
\nthe Delhi Act an application had to be made before the\tRent
\nController under Section 14(1)(a).\n<\/p>\n
22.  The  unreasonableness of the construction suggested  by
\nthe  appellant\tis well illustrated by the case\t of  Santosh
\nMehta  v.  Om  Prakash4.  In<\/a> that case,\t the  tenant  was  a
\nworking woman, who had engaged an advocate to represent\t her
\nin  a  dispute\twith the landlord.  She duly  paid  all\t the
\narrears\t of rent by cheque or in cash to her  advocate,\t who
\nfailed\tto deposit the amount or to pay to the landlord,  as
\ndirected by the Rent Controller.  On an application made  by
\nthe landlord, the Rent Controller struck out the defence  of
\nthe tenant
\n4 (1980) 3 SCC 610 :(1980) 3 SCR 325
\n364<\/span>
\nunder Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.  A  Bench
\nof two Judges of this Court held that the exercise of  power
\nof  striking  out the defence under Section  15(7)  was\t not
\nimperative whenever the tenant failed to deposit or pay\t any
\namount as required by Section 15.  The provisions  contained
\nin  Section  15(7)  of\tthe  Act  were\tdirectory  and\t not
\nmandatory.  Section 15(7) was a penal provision and gave the
\nRent  Controller  discretionary\t power\tin  the\t matter\t  of
\nstriking  out of the defence.  It was ultimately  held\tthat
\nthe order of the Rent Controller striking out the defence of
\nthe  tenant  in the facts of that case\twas  improper.\t The
\nconsequential order of eviction was set aside.\n<\/p>\n
23.  We are unable to uphold the contention of the appellant
\nthat  the  case\t of Ram Murti v.  Bhola\t Nath2<\/a>\twas  wrongly
\ndecided and reliance was wrongly placed in that case on\t the
\ndecision  of  a Bench of three Judges of this Court  in\t the
\ncase of Shyamcharan Sharma v. DharamdaS3.  In our view, sub-
\nsection (7)    of Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control\tAct,
\n1958 gives a discretion to the\t   Rent Controller and\tdoes
\nnot contain a mandatory provision for striking out     the
\ndefence of the tenant against eviction.\t The Rent Controller
\nmay or may     not  pass an order striking out the  defence.
\nThe  exercise of this discretion will depend upon the  facts
\nand  circumstances of each case.  If the Rent Controller  is
\nof the view that in the facts of a particular case the\ttime
\nto make payment or deposit pursuant to an order passed under
\nsub-section (1) of Section 15 should be extended, he may  do
\nso  by\tpassing a suitable order.  Similarly, if he  is\t not
\nsatisfied  about  the case made out by the  tenant,  he\t may
\norder  the defence against eviction to be struck out.\tBut,
\nthe  power  to strike out the defence  against\teviction  is
\ndiscretionary and must not be mechanically exercised without
\nany application of mind to the facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n
24.  In\t that view of the matter, this appeal fails  and  is
\ndismissed.  Each party will bear its own costs.\n<\/p>\n
365<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kamla Devi vs Vasdev on 14 December, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 985, 1995 SCC (1) 356 Author: S Sen Bench: Sen, S.C. (J) PETITIONER: KAMLA DEVI Vs. RESPONDENT: VASDEV DATE OF JUDGMENT14\/12\/1994 BENCH: SEN, S.C. (J) BENCH: SEN, S.C. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BHARUCHA S.P. (J) CITATION: 1995 AIR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-183054","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKamla Devi vs Vasdev on 14 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kamla Devi vs Vasdev on 14 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1994-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-13T19:52:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kamla Devi vs Vasdev on 14 December, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-13T19:52:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994\"},\"wordCount\":3658,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994\",\"name\":\"Kamla Devi vs Vasdev on 14 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-13T19:52:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kamla Devi vs Vasdev on 14 December, 1994\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kamla Devi vs Vasdev on 14 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kamla Devi vs Vasdev on 14 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-13T19:52:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kamla Devi vs Vasdev on 14 December, 1994","datePublished":"1994-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-13T19:52:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994"},"wordCount":3658,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994","name":"Kamla Devi vs Vasdev on 14 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-13T19:52:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-devi-vs-vasdev-on-14-december-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kamla Devi vs Vasdev on 14 December, 1994"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183054","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=183054"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183054\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183054"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183054"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183054"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}