rajneesh madhok
SPNer
- Jan 1, 2010
- 517
- 490
- 60
NEW DELHI: A tenant who fails to pay rent despite court's order cannot seek its protection against eviction from premises, the Delhi High Court has said.
The Delhi Rent Control Act grants protection to the defaulter tenant if the due sum is deposited. However, such right is taken away if the tenant defaults for the second time, the court said.
Justice V B Gupta passed the order while dismissing the plea of a tenant seeking setting aside of the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller.
"When the tenant makes a second default, no protection can be given to the tenant on eviction... the benefit under the Act could not have been given to such a tenant who, despite suffering a decree, fails to pay rent regularly and again commits default," the court said.
Earlier, the Rent Controller had passed the order in 2008 asking a tenant to deposit arrears of rent for last 42 years.
However, instead of depositing the sum, the tenant filed an appeal and subsequently withdrew it after six months.
Noting that the conduct of the tenant following the order for payment of arrears was "callous" and he had no intention to pay, the court said "the eviction order was rightly passed for non-payment of the rent".
The court also turned down the plea of the tenant that the Act casts a duty upon the Controller to quantify arrear rent and as the same was not done he could not comply with the order to pay.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...default-in-payment-HC/articleshow/6183259.cms
Rajneesh Madhok
The Delhi Rent Control Act grants protection to the defaulter tenant if the due sum is deposited. However, such right is taken away if the tenant defaults for the second time, the court said.
Justice V B Gupta passed the order while dismissing the plea of a tenant seeking setting aside of the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller.
"When the tenant makes a second default, no protection can be given to the tenant on eviction... the benefit under the Act could not have been given to such a tenant who, despite suffering a decree, fails to pay rent regularly and again commits default," the court said.
Earlier, the Rent Controller had passed the order in 2008 asking a tenant to deposit arrears of rent for last 42 years.
However, instead of depositing the sum, the tenant filed an appeal and subsequently withdrew it after six months.
Noting that the conduct of the tenant following the order for payment of arrears was "callous" and he had no intention to pay, the court said "the eviction order was rightly passed for non-payment of the rent".
The court also turned down the plea of the tenant that the Act casts a duty upon the Controller to quantify arrear rent and as the same was not done he could not comply with the order to pay.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...default-in-payment-HC/articleshow/6183259.cms
Rajneesh Madhok
