RAM MURTI v. BHOLA NATH AIR 1984 SC 71

It was alleged that although the appellant had taken the premises on rent from the Custodian of Evacuee Properties at Rs 18 per month he vacated the premises after respondent 1 acquired the same and there was a new tenancy created in his favour on March 1, 1961 on a monthly rent of Rs. 80. On an application made by respondent 1, the Additional Rent Controller by his order dated February 14, 1969 passed under Section 15 (1) of the Act directed the appellant to deposit rent Rs. 18 per month w. e. f. December 1, 1965 and to deposit the future rent at the same date on the fifteenth day of each succeeding month.
The High Court relying upon the decision of this Court in Hem Chand v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co Ltd. [AIR 1977 SC 1986] held that the Rent Controller had no power to extend the time prescribed by an order under Section 15 (1) which requires the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within one month from the date of the order and future rents by the fifteenth day of the each succeeding month.
From a conspectus of these provisions, it would be seen that the various sub-sections of Sections 14 and 15 form an integrated process seeking to strike a balance between the conflicting rights of the landlord to secure eviction of the tenant on any one or more of the grounds specified in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 and that of the tenant for protection against such eviction except under certain circumstances.
When a tenant can get the benefit of the protection under Section 14 (2) is provided for in Section 15 (1). Section 15 (1) of the Act is in two parts. The first part requires the tenant to pay or deposit within one month of the order of the Rent Controller passed under S. 15 (1) directing him to pay the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which such payment or deposit is to be made. The second part is meant to secure payment of the future rent by a defaulting tenant and casts a duty on such tenant to continue to pay or deposit, month by month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.
It logically follows that if the Rent Controller has the power not to strike out the defence of the tenant under Section 15 (7) of the Act, he necessarily has by legal implication the power to condone the default on the part of the tenant in making payment or deposit of the future rent.
If the Rent Controller has the discretion under S. 15 (7) not to strike out the defence of the tenant he necessarily has the power to extend the time for payment of future rent under Sec. 15 (1) where the failure of the tenant to make such payment or deposit was due to circumstance beyond his control.
Court reverse the view expressed by the High Court that the Rent Controller has no power to condone the default on the part of the tenant in making payment or deposit of future rent or to extend time for such payment or deposit.