PROF RAM PRAKASH THROUGH LR vs SHEIKH NASIM AHMED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 04.10.2024 Judgment delivered on: 09.12.2024
+ CM(M) 134/2021 & CM APPL. 6070/2021
PROF RAM PRAKASH THROUGH LR ….Petitioner
versus
SHEIKH NASIM AHMED …..Respondent
Memo of Appearance
For the Petitioner: Ms. Mallika Joshi, Advocate (Through VC)
For the Respondent: None
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
MANOJ JAIN, J
1. Petitioner-landlord has raised the following two issues: –
(i) Whether the tenant is entitled to any compensation under Section 20(3) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 when the possession has already been restored to him after the requisite repairs?
(ii) Whether the Controller, after such repairs, ought to have fixed the rent as per market rate or not?
2. This case has long-drawn history.
3. The tenancy in question was created way back in the year 1981.
4. It was verbal in nature.
5. A shop was rented out to the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 205/-.
6. In the year 2007, the landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(g) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act) for reconstruction of his property, also comprising of tenanted shop.
7. The eviction petition was allowed vide order dated 22.10.2011.
8. However, in terms of Section 20 of DRC Act, learned Controller ascertained from the tenant whether he elected to be placed in occupation of the aforesaid premises after the repair or not.
9. The response of the tenant was in affirmative.
10. Statements of the parties were accordingly recorded and landlord undertook to provide an alternate shop in the same building of the equivalent area after reconstruction and tenant accepted such arrangement.
11. The tenant, accordingly, handed over possession of tenanted shop to landlord on 02.02.2012 and landlord undertook to carry out the requisite repair/reconstruction within three months and to hand over the possession to the tenant of the agreed premises on or before 09.05.2012.
12. Since the landlord failed to adhere to his undertaking, the tenant filed an execution petition and got back the possession on 02.09.2013.
13. Obviously, the possession was received by the tenant after delay of 16 months.
14. The first question is whether having once received the possession, albeit, through execution, the learned Controller could have granted any compensation for the aforesaid delay of 16 months or not and if yes, at what rate.
15. Section 20 of DRC Act reads as under: –
Recovery of possession for repairs and re-building and re-entry
(1) In making any order on the grounds specified in clause (f) or clause (g) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, the Controller shall ascertain from the tenant whether he elects to be placed in occupation of the premises or part thereof from which he is to be evicted and if the tenant so elects, shall record the fact of the election in the order and specify therein the date on or before which he shall deliver possession so as to enable the landlord to commence the work of repairs or building or re-building, as the case may be.
(2) If the tenant delivers possession on or before the date specified in the order, the landlord shall, on the completion of the work of repairs of building or re-building, place the tenant in occupation of the premises or part thereof.
(3) If, after the tenant has delivered possession on or before the date specified in the order, the landlord fails to commence the work of repairs or building or re-building within one month of the specified date or fails to complete the work in a reasonable time or having completed the work, fails to place the tenant in occupation of the premises in accordance with sub-section (2), the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by the tenant within such time as may be prescribed, order the landlord to place the tenant in occupation of the premises or part thereof or to pay to the tenant such compensation as the Controller thinks fit.
16. According to learned counsel for the landlord, a bare reading of Section 20(3) of DRC Act would indicate that learned Controller has two options i.e. either to restore the possession or to grant compensation and, therefore, once the possession is restored, learned Controller has no power to award any compensation under Section 20(3) of DRC Act.
17. Undoubtedly, the language of Section 20(3) of DRC Act stipulates two options which are joined with word or instead of and.
18. However, it is to be assessed whether that would mean that Controller is a mere mute spectator and toothless to award any compensation or cost.
19. The undertaking was given by the landlord himself before the learned Controller that he would restore the possession after three months. No sincere endeavour was made by the landlord to handover the possession after such repairs/reconstruction in terms of his own undertaking and statement.
20. As noted already, the tenant was rather compelled to file execution petition and it was only during the execution proceedings, that too with the assistance of police, that he got back the possession.
21. It is admitted fact that the tenant was running a shop which was shut down to enable landlord to carry out repairs and reconstruction.
22. It was to be restored within three months but there is delay of 16 months.
23. The period of 16 months is not a small period and the hardship faced by the tenant during the interregnum is not difficult to fathom.
24. Such tenant remained at his toes and ran from pillar to post to ensure that he gets back the possession, as quickly as possible.
25. Initially, he had filed an application seeking initiation of contempt against the landlord who did not hand over the possession despite giving an undertaking to the Court. Such contempt petition was, eventually, treated as an application under Section 20(3) of DRC Act and while considering the aforesaid application, learned Controller, vide order dated 23.08.2017, directed the landlord to pay compensation @ Rs. 6,000/-per month for the aforesaid period of 16 months. Rent was also revised and since cost of the construction was Rs. 11,650/- as per the evidence, the landlord was allowed 10% of said amount i.e. Rs. 1,165/- as increased rent per annum in terms of Section 7(1) of DRC Act.
26. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord filed an appeal under Section 38 of DRC Act before learned Rent Control Tribunal and such appeal has also been dismissed vide order dated 11.05.2020.
27. This is how the landlord is now before us claiming that there could not have been any award of compensation and also that the revised rent should have been as per market rate.
28. Section 20(3) of DRC Act cannot be read and interpreted in a narrow and constricted manner. The spirit and objective with which the aforesaid Section was created has to be understood.
29. Whenever any such tenant chooses and elects to be placed in occupation of the premises or part thereof, it becomes obligatory for any landlord to commence the work of repair within the stipulated period so as to ensure that the tenant is not put to any unnecessary loss. Naturally, after repair, the premises have to be restored to the tenant within the agreed period. Merely because, the aforesaid Section stipulates that in case there is any failure to place the tenant in occupation of the premises, the Controller may either order compensation or direct restoration would not mean that if such restoration of possession is delayed unwarrantedly and for unjustifiably inordinate period, the Controller would be in no position to direct for any compensation.
30. If such analogy is accepted then the Court would be rather permitting any such landlord to drive benefits from his own wrongs.
31. This Court also cannot be oblivious of the fact that the tenant was running a shop from the tenanted premises and by delayed handing over, the tenant must have been put to loss as he was unable to run business or earn for himself.
32. Therefore, Section 20 (3) of DRC Act has to be read in right spirit.
33. DRC Act is a social piece of legislation which has been enacted to give requisite protection to tenants. It has been observed by Honble Supreme Court in Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajendra K. Tandon: 1998 SCC OnLine SC 228 that DRC Act is beneficial as also restrictive in nature and the Courts are, therefore, under a legal compulsion to harmoniously read the provisions of the Act so as to balance the rights of the landlord and the obligations of the tenant towards each other keeping in mind that one of the objects of the legislature while enacting the Act was to curb the tendency of the greedy landlords to throw out the tenants, paying lower rent, in the name of personal occupation and rent out the premises at the market rate.
34. Keeping in view above and the peculiar facts of the case, dehors Section 20(3) of DRC Act, Controller can always award compensation or impose cost or penalty wherever it notices that the landlord has deliberately and wrongfully delayed the restoration of possession and has retracted from his own undertaking.
35. Thus, it cannot be said that the compensation could not have been ordered.
36. The formula for calculating such compensation does not seem to be unreasonable from any angle whatsoever.
37. Since there was delay of 16 months in handing over the possession, the loss to the tenant was estimated, as a bare minimum, to be of Rs. 200/- per day i.e. Rs. 6,000/- per month and it was in the aforesaid backdrop that the compensation was ordered as Rs. 96,000/- (6000×16).
38. This Court fully agrees with the reasoning given by learned Tribunal in Para-20 and Para-21 of impugned order which read as under: –
20. The second challenge by the appellant is to the grant of compensation in terms of Section 20(3) of the rent Act. It may be noted that Section 20(3) provides for payment of compensation in cases of alternate accommodation cannot be provided to the tenant for an occupation under Section 14(1)(g). There are thus, two aspects of compensation; one is payment of compensation when the alternate property cannot be given which is not the situation in the present case as possession was given to the respondent though with a delay of 16 months. The second aspect is whether the tenant can be granted compensation for the delay of 16 months in handing over of the possession. The argument on behalf of the appellant that such like case of delay in handing over of the possession, would not be covered under Section 20(3) of the Act is to give a narrow interpretation to Section 20(3) of the Act. The Ld. ARC has rightly concluded that such like case of grant of compensation for delay in handing over of possession would also be within the scope of Section 20(3) of the Act. The arguments that the Ld. ARC went beyond the scope of earlier order of the Ld. RCT and Hon’ble High Court, is not correct. There were specific directions for grant of compensation under Section 20(3) and the Ld. ARC has accordingly, decided the question of compensation.
21. The only other aspect that remains is whether the quantum of grant of compensation for a period of 16 months has been calculated erroneously without there being any cogent evidence on record. The respondent/tenant in his cross-examination recorded on 26.07.2017 had deposed that he was earning Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per day. The Ld. ARC on the basis of this evidence had calculated that his earning could have been taken to be Rs.200/- per day at the time he handed over the shop in the year 2012 in an area like East of Kailash Market. It is the estimation drawn by the Ld. ARC on the basis of the evidence on record and it cannot be held to be arbitrary; in any case it is a question of fact which cannot be considered in an appeal under Section 38 DRC Act. The quantum of compensation at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month for a period of 16 months, cannot be held to be unjustified.
39. The second question is regarding fixation of revised rent.
40. When premises are restored to any such tenant after repairs, the landlord cannot, in a blatant manner, seek fixation of rent as per the current market rate. The increase in rent, if any, after such repair or improvement or reconstruction has to be in consonance with Section 7(1) of DRC Act.
41. Section 7 (1) of DRC Act reads as under: –
7. Lawful increase of standard rent in certain cases and recovery of other charges.(1) Where a landlord has at any time, before the commencement of this Act with or without the approval of the tenant or after the commencement of this Act with the written approval of the tenant or of the Controller, incurred expenditure for any improvement, addition or structural alteration in the premises, not being expenditure on decoration or tenantable repairs necessary or usual for such premises, and the cost of that improvement, addition or alteration has not been taken into account in determining the rent of the premises, the landlord may lawfully increase the standard rent per year by an amount not exceeding ten per cent of such cost.
42. Since as per the evidence led by the landlord, the cost of construction was Rs. 11,650/-, the landlord was allowed to increase in the prescribed proportion i.e. 10% of such construction cost which came to Rs. Rs. 1,165/- as an increased rate of rent per annum.
43. The demand of landlord seems to be totally unreasonable and illogical in seeking revision of rent upto Rs. 26,932/- per month.
44. There is nothing to indicate or demonstrate any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order or in the approach of the learned Rent Control Tribunal.
45. This Court, while exercising its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is, not required to revaluate and re-appreciate the evidence and to come to any different conclusion, more so, when such findings are in consonance with the evidence led by the parties. The duty of the supervisory Court is to interdict if it finds that the findings are perverse i.e. (i) Erroneous on account of non-consideration of material evidence, or (ii) Being conclusions which are contrary to the evidence, or (iii) Based on inferences that are impermissible in law. Reference be made to Puri Investments Versus Young Friends and Co. and Others: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 283.
46. In view of the aforesaid, finding no merit or substance in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 09, 2024/dr
CM(M) 134/2021 Page 1 of 8