2019 INSC 0078
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.12561­12562 OF 2017
HARBANS KAUR  … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
IQBAL SINGH & ANR. … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
These appeals have been filed by the appellant, the
landlord   of   the   premises   in   question,   challenging   the
judgment   of   the   Rajasthan   High   Court   dated   09.10.2014
allowing   the   writ   petition   filed   by   the   tenant   setting
aside   the   order   of   eviction   passed   by   Rent   Tribunal   as
well   as   Appellate   Rent   Tribunal.   Division   Bench   of   the
Rajasthan High Court vide its judgment dated 14.12.2015
dismissed   the   Special   Appeal(Writ)   of   the   landlord   as
not maintainable.

2
2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for
deciding these appeals are:
The   appellant   is   landlord   of   Shop   No.3   and   4   in
Plot   No.362   which   was   let   out   to   the   respondent­tenant
in   August,   1995   at   the   rent   of   Rs.8,500/­   per   month.   A
Rent   Deed   dated   19.08.1995   was   executed   between   the
parties.   Rent   deed   contained   a   clause   for   yearly
increase   of   rent   by   10%.   The   tenant   continued   to   pay
rent   to   the   landlord   as   per   the   agreed   rent   with   10%
enhancement   yearly.   In   the   year   2003   the   tenant   was
making   payment   of   rent   at   the   rate   of   Rs.16,564/­   per
month.     In   April,   2003,   rent   which   was   paid   by   the
tenant   was       Rs.   16,564/­,   upto   July,   2003   the   tenant
paid   the   rent   at   the   rate   of   Rs.16,564   per   month.   The
landlord   issued   notice   dated   27.03.2004   stating   that
with   effect   from   01.08.2003   upto   29.02.2004,   for   a
period   of   seven   months,   the   tenant   has   neither   paid   or
tendered   rent,   arrears   from   01.08.2003   to   29.02.2004
amounting   to   Rs.1,15,945/­   were   asked   to   be   deposited
in   the   bank   account   of   landlord.   Notice   mentioned   that
in   the   event   the   tenant   does   not   deposit   the   amount   in

3
the   account,   landlord   shall   be   compelled   to   carry   out
legal proceedings for eviction of the tenant. After the
aforesaid   notice   dated   27.03.2004   the   tenant   deposited
an   amount   of   Rs.95,200/­   on   26.04.2004   in   the   bank
account   of   the   landlord.   Landlord   filed   an   Application
No.1258   of   2004   under   Section   9   of   the   Rajasthan   Rent
Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act,
2001”) praying for eviction on the ground of arrears of
rent.   The   tenant   filed   reply   opposing   the   abovesaid
application.   The   tenant   took   stand   in   the   application
that   in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of   Act,   2001,
which   has   come   into   effect   from   01.04.2003,   on
increasing   the   rent   under   the   provisions   of   Section   6
in   the   prescribed   rent   of   Rs.8,500/­   @   7.5%   per   annum
the   rate   of   rent   from   01.04.2003   comes   to   be
Rs.13,600/­   per   month.   It   was   stated   In   the   written
statement that tenant has deposited rent upto February,
2004   @   Rs.13,600/­   per   month   i.e.   a   total   of
Rs.95,200/­ in the bank account. 
3. Rejoinder   was   filed   by   the   landlord   where   it   was
pleaded   that   respondent­tenant   has   been   paying   rent

4
from   August,   2002   @   Rs.16,564/­   per   month   which   rent
was   paid   till   July,   2003.   It   was   claimed   that   the
respondent­tenant   is   liable   to   pay   rent   @   Rs.16,564/­
per   month.   The   Rent   Tribunal   heard   the   parties   and   by
its   judgment   and   order   dated   22.04.2011   directed   for
eviction of the tenant. The Rent Tribunal held that the
case   of   tenant   that   rent   is   payable   @   Rs.13,600/­   per
month   cannot   be   accepted.   The   tenant   having   not
deposited   at   the   rate   of   Rs.16,564/­   per   month,   has
committed   default   in   paying   rent.   An   appeal   was   filed
by   the   tenant   before   the   Rent   Appellate   Tribunal   which
too   was   dismissed   by   order   dated   15.01.2014.   The   order
of   the   Rent   Tribunal   was   upheld.   The   tenant   aggrieved
by   the   order   of   the   Appellate   Tribunal   filed   Writ
Petition   No.6965   of   2014   in   the   High   Court   which   writ
petition   was   allowed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   vide
its   judgment   and   order   dated   09.10.2014.   Against   the
judgment   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   dated   09.10.2014
Special   Appeal   (Writ)   No.2075   of   2014   was   filed   which
was   dismissed   by   the   Division   Bench   vide   its   judgment
dated   14.12.2015   holding   writ   appeal     as   not

5
maintainable.   Aggrieved   against   the   judgments   of   the
High Court landlord has filed these appeals.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
High   Court   committed   error   in   interpreting   the
provisions of Sections 4, 6, 7 and 14 of the Act, 2001.
He   submits   that   the   rent   which   was   being   paid   by   the
tenant   on   the   enforcement   of   the   Act   i.e.   w.e.f.
01.04.2003   was   Rs.16,564/­   per   month,   the   tenant   was
liable  to  pay  the  rent  at  the  same  rate.  It is  not  the
case   of   the   appellants   that   they   are   demanding   rent
with   the   hike   of   10%   after   the   enforcement   of   Act,
2001.   The   tenant,   however,   is   calculating   the   rent   by
revising the rent with effect from year 1995 as per the
provisions   of   Section   6   of   the   Act.   The   tenant's   case
that   rent   payable   was   Rs.13,600/­   per   month   is
erroneous.   By   the   notice   given   by   the   landlord   dated
27.03.2004   an   amount   of   Rs.1,15,945/­   which   was   due
from August, 2003 to February, 2004 was demanded at the
rate   of   Rs.16,564/­   per   month.   The   tenant   having   not
deposited the due amount and having deposited amount of
only   Rs.95,200/­   on   26.04.2004   has   committed   default.

6
The   rent   which   was   being   paid   on   the   date   of   the
commencement   of   the   Act,   2001,   shall   be   treated   as
agreed rent between the parties. There is change in the
statutory   scheme   of   Act,   2001   which   now   entitles
landlord   to   seek   revision   of   the   rent.   As   per   the
provisions of Act, 2001 the tenant has not been given a
right   to   get   revision   of   the   agreed   rent   under   the
statutory scheme.
5. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   refuting   the
submission   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants
submits   that   the   High   Court   has   rightly   taken   the   view
that   the   landlord   was   not   entitled   to   enhancement   of
the   rent   more   than   5%   in   view   of   the   Act,   2001.   The
landlord   was   not   at   liberty   to   claim   rent   with
enhancement   at   the   rate   of   10%   per   annum.   The   High
Court   had   rightly   held   that   permitting   the   landlord   to
demand   rent   with   increase   of   10%   shall   be   contrary   to
the Section 6 of the Act, 2001. Any agreement cannot be
given   effect   if   it   provides   the   revision   of   rent   above
@   5%.   Learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   additionally
submitted that in the event the rate of rent as claimed

7
by   the   landlord   is   accepted   the   agreed   rent,   after   the
receipt   of   the   notice   by   the   tenant,   tenant   has
deposited   amount   of   Rs.95,200/­,   which   covered   rent
upto   December,   2003   and   part   of   rent   of   January,   2004.
The tenant was not in default for four months, hence he
could   not   have   been   evicted   under   Section   9   of   Act,
2001.   He   submits   that   unless   there   is   default   for
payment of 4 months rent eviction cannot be ordered. He
submits   that   due   to   this   reason   the   orders   of   eviction
were   unsustainable   and   this   Court   may   not   interfere
with the judgment of the High Court.
6. We   have   considered   the   submissions   of   the   learned
counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. We   need   to   look   into   the   statutory   scheme   of   Act,
2001   for   considering   the   respective   submissions.   The
Rent   Control   Legislation   which   was   in   operation   prior
to Act, 2001 also need to be noted for appreciating the
changes   in   law   brought   by   the   Act,   2001.   The   issue   in
these appeals pertains to rate of rent and the revision
of   rent   as   prescribed   by   the   Act,   2001,   hence,   only

8
those   provisions   of   both   the   earlier   Act   and   the
Act,2001   need   to   be   noted.   Act,   2001   has   repealed   the
Rajasthan   Premises   (Control   of   Rent   and   Eviction)   Act,
1950.   We   may   first   notice   the   provisions   of   Act,   2001
which   are   relevant   for   the   present   case.   Section   4
provides   for   rent   to   be   as   agreed   which   is   to   the
following effect:
“ Section   4.   Rent   to   be   as   agreed.   ­   The   rent
payable   for   any   premises   shall,   subject   to
other   provisions   of   this   Act,   be   such   as   may
be   agreed   upon   between   the   landlord   and   the
tenant   and   it   shall   not   include   the   charges
payable for amenities which may he agreed upon
separately; and shall be payable accordingly.”
8. Chapter II of the Act, 2001 deals with “Revision of
Rent”.   Section   6   of   the   Act   (as   existing   on   relevant
day) provides as follows:
“ Section   6.   Revision   of   rent   in   respect   of
existing   tenancies.   ­   (1)   Notwithstanding
anything   contained   in   any   agreement,   where
the   premises   have   been   let   out   before   the
commencement   of   this   Act,   the   rent   thereof
shall   be   liable   to   be   revised   according   to
the formula indicated below :­
(a)   where   the   premises   have   been   let   out
prior   to   1st   January,   1950,   it   shall   be
deemed   to   have   been   let   out   on   1st   January,
1950 and the rent payable at that time shall
be   liable   to   be   increased   at   the   rate   of

9
7.5% per annum and the amount of increase of
rent   shall   be   merged   in   such   rent   alter   ten
years.   The   amount   of   rent   so   arrived   at
shall again be liable to be increased at the
rate   of   7.5%   per   annum   in   similar   manner
upto the year of commencement of this Act;
(b)  where   the   premises   have  been   let   out   on
or after 1st January, 1951, the rent payable
at   the   time   of   commencement   of   the   tenancy
shall   be   liable  to   he   increased  at   the   rate
of 7.5% per annum and the amount of increase
of   rent   shall   be   merged   in   such   rent   after
ten  years.   The   amount   of   rent   so   arrived   at
shall again be liable to be increased at the
rate   of   7.5%   per   annum   in   similar   manner
upto the year of commencement of this Act.
(2)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in
Sub­section   (1),   where   the   period   of   ten
years   for   merger   of   increase   of   rent   under
Sub­section   (1),   is   not   completed   upto   the
year   of   the   commencement   of   this   Act,   the
rent at the rate  of 7.5%  per annum shall be
increased   upto   the   year   of   the   commencement
of   this   Act   and   amount   of   increase   of   rent
shall be merged in rent.
(3)   The   rent   arrived   at   according   to   the
formula   given   in   Sub­section   (1)   and   (2)
shall,   after   completion   of   each   year   from
the year of commencement of this Act, again
be   liable   to   be   increased   and   paid   at   the
rate   of   5%   per   annum   and   the   amount   of
increase   of   rent   shall   he   merged   in   such
rent   after   ten   years.   Such   tent   shall

10
further   be   liable   to   he   increased   at
similar   rate   and   merged   in   similar   manner
till the tenancy subsists.
(4)   The   rent   revised   as   per   formula   given
under   Sub­section   (1)   or   Sub­section   (2)
shall   be   payable,   after   the   commencement   of
this   Act,   from   the   date   agreed   upon   between
the   landlord   and   the   tenant   or   where   any
petition   is   filed   in   a   Rent   Tribunal,   from
the date of filing of such petition.”
9. Section 7 deals with revision of rent in respect of
new tenancies which is to the following effect:
“ Section 7. Revision of rent in respect of new
tenancies.   ­   (1)In   the   absence   of   any
agreement   to   the   contrary,   the   rent   of   the
premises   let   out   alter   the   commencement   of
this   Act   shall   be   liable   to   be   increased   at
the   rate   of   5%   per   annum   and   the   amount   of
increase of rent shall be merged in such rent
after   ten   years.   Such   rent   shall   further   be
liable to be increased at the similar rate and
merged   in   similar   manner   till   the   tenancy
subsists.
(2)   Any   agreement   for   increase   of   rent   in
excess   of   5%   per   annum   shall   be   void   to   that
extent.”
10. Section   14   provides   the   procedure   for   revision   of
rent. Section 14 sub­section (1) is as follows:

11
“ Section 14. Procedure for revision of rent.   ­
(1)   The   landlord   may   seek   revision   of   rent
under Section 6 or Section 7 by submitting it
petition   before   the   Rent   Tribunal   accompanied
by affidavits and documents, if any.”
11. Now we notice the relevant provisions as existed in
Act,   1950.   Section   5   dealt   with   the   payment   as   agreed
rent to the following effect:
" Section   5.   Rent   to   be   as   agreed.­   The   rent
payable   for   any   premises   situated   within   the
areas   to   which   this   Act   extends   for   the   time
being   shall,   subject   to   the   other   provisions
thereof, be ordinarily such, as may be agreed
upon between the landlord and the tenant.”
12. Section   6   dealt   with   fixation   of   standard   rent.
Section 6(1) is as follows:
" Section   6.   Fixation   of   standard   rent.­ (1)
Where   no   rent   has   been   agreed   upon   or   where
for any reason the rent agreed upon is claimed
to   be   low   or   excessive,   the   landlord   or   the
tenant   may   institute   a   suit   in   the   lowest
court   or   competent   jurisdiction   for   fixation
of standard rent for any premises.
(2)..................”
13. In   the   Act,   1950,   Section   7   provided   for   fixation

12
of   provisional   rent,   which   provided   that   upon   the
institution   of   a   suit   under   Section   6,   the   Court   shall
forthwith   make   an   order   fixing   in   a   summary   manner   a
provisional   rent   for   the   premises   in   question,   which
shall   be   binding   on   all   parties   concerned   and   shall
remain   in   force   till   a   decree   fixing   the   standard   rent
therefor is finally made in such suit.
15. The   important   differences   between   the   statutory
scheme   as   contained   in   Section   6   of   Act,   1950   and   as
now contained in Act, 2001 are:
(i) Under   the   old   Act   the   landlord   or   the
tenant   both   were   entitled   to   file   a   suit   for
fixation   of   standard   rent,   if   it   is   claimed
that   rent   is   either   low   or   excessive.   Thus,
landlord   could   have   moved   the   Court   for
enhancement of the rent and equally the tenant
could have instituted a suit in the event the
rent was excessive and the Court after holding
inquiry was to determine the standard rent for
such premises.
(ii) In   Section   6   of   Act,   2001   the   tenant   has
not been given any right to apply for revision
of the rent on any ground. The old Act did not

13
contain   any   prohibition   regarding   the   annual
increase   of   rent   whereas   Section   6   now
contains   the   prohibition,   restricting   annual
increase   only   by   5%   for   both   the   tenancies
which   were   in   existence   prior   to   enforcement
of   the   Act   as   well   as   tenancies   which
commenced   after   the   commencement   of   the   Act,
2001.
14. The   moot   question   to   be   answered   is   as   to   whether
the   agreed   rent   which   was   being   paid   by   the   tenant
immediately   before   the   commencement   of   Act,   2001   i.e.
with   effect   from   01.04.2003   is   liable   to   be   re­
determined   as   per   provisions   of   Section   6   of   Act,   2001
by a tenant and tenant can unilaterally revise the rent
under   new     Section   6.   Reverting   to   the   facts   of   the
present   case,   it   is   on   the   record   that   tenant   was
paying   the   rent   of   Rs.16,564/­   per   month   immediately
before the enforcement of the Act and even subsequently
till   the   month   of   July,   2003.   In   the   rent   agreement
there   was   mutual   agreement   between   the   parties   for
annual   increase   @   10%   and   the   rent   of   Rs.16,565/­   per
month   was   arrived   at   complying   @   10%   increase   annually
to   the   tenancy   which   commenced   from   01.08.1995.   As   per

14
tenant   the   rent   which   was   become   payable   after   the
enforcement of the Act has to be re­determined applying
Section   6   and   instead   of   10%   as   agreed   between   the
parties   calculation   has   to   be   on   the   basis   of   increase
at   the   rate   of   7.5%   w.e.f.   01.08.1995   as   per   provision
of Section 6.
15. A   comparison   of   scheme   of   Section   6   as   it   existed
in   Act,   1950   and   Section   6   as   it   brought   under   Act,
2001   makes   it   clear   that   although   the   tenant   under   the
old   Act   was   entitled   to   apply   for   fixation   of   standard
rent   if   the   rent   was   excessive   whereas   under   Section   6
of the Act, 2001 tenant has not been given any right to
pray for reduction of the rent. It is true that Section
6(1)   begins   with   the   words   “Notwithstanding   anything
contained   in   any   agreement”.   Section   6(1)   sub­clause
(b)   provides   for   “where   the   premises   have   been   let   out
on   or   after   01.01.1950”,   the   provision   contemplates
that   the   rent   payable   at   the   time   of   commencement   of
the tenancy shall be liable to be increased at the rate
of 7.5% per annum.

15
16. Sub­section   (4)   of   Section   6   further   provides   that
rent revised as per formula given under sub­section (1)
and   sub­section   (2)   shall   be   payable,   after   the
commencement   of   this   Act   from   the   date   agreed   upon
between   the   landlord   and   the   tenant   or   where   any
revision petition is filed, from date of filing of such
petition.
17. Section   14   of   the   Act   contains   procedure   for
revision   of   rent   which   provides   that   landlord   may   seek
revision   of   rent   under   Section   6   and   7   by   submitting   a
petition   before   the   Rent   Tribunal   accompanied   by
affidavits   and   documents,   if   any.   Section   14   sub­
section   (1)   uses   the   words   “landlord   may   seek
revision”.   It   is   not   obligatory   for   every   landlord   to
seek   revision   of   rent   in   accordance   with   Section   6.
Section 6 contains provision entitling landlord to seek
revision   of   rent   notwithstanding   anything   contained   in
any   agreement   between   landlord   and   tenant.   Section   6
empowers the landlord to obtain revision of rent and to
calculate   the   rent   from   date   of   initiation   of   tenancy.
But in the event landlord does not choose to invoke the

16
machinery   of   revision   of   the   rent   as   provided   in
Section   6   and   Section   14,   the   agreed   rent   between   the
parties   shall   not   automatically   be   changed   nor   the
tenant   can   unilaterally   revise   the   rent.   Section   6   is
also   beneficial   to   the   tenant   to   the   extent   that   any
contrary   agreement   between   the   parties   to   increase   the
rent   annually   more   than   as   provided   under   Section   6
cannot   be   enforced   by   a   landlord   after   the   enforcement
of   the   Act.   In   the   event   landlord   applies   for   revision
of   the   rent,   the   revision   of   rent   has   to   be   in
accordance   with   the   formula   as   provided   under   Section
6(1) and 6(2) of the Act. The statutory scheme does not
indicate   that   the   tenant   can   unilaterally   compute   the
rent   as   per   formula   under   Section   6(1)   from   the
inception   of   the   tenancy   and   reduce   the   amount   of   rent
which   he   was   paying   immediately   before   the   enforcement
of the Act. In the present case, the tenant has come up
with   the   case   in   his   written   statement   that   he   has
recomputed   the   rent   from   inception   of   tenancy   and   has
arrived   at   calculation   that   the   rent   payable   with
effect   from   the   enforcement   of   Act,   2001   was

17
Rs.13,600/­ only and relying on the said computation he
deposited   an   amount   of   Rs.95,200/­   in     response   to   the
notice.   The   High   Court   in   its   judgment   has   held   that
after the enforcement of the Act, 2001 no agreement can
provide   for   higher   revision   of   rent.   The   High   Court   in
its judgment has made following observation:
"Section   6   of   the   Act   starts   with   non­
obstantive   clause,   thus   no   agreement   to
provide   higher   or   lower   rate   of   revision   of
rent   would   operate   after   commencement   of   the
Act of 2001.
The   landlord   was   thus   not   at   liberty   to
claim rent with enhancement @ 10% per annum.”
18. Ultimately, the High Court held following:
"The landlord was entitled to the rent as was
payable   on   the   date   of   commencement   of   the
Act   of   2001   without   its   revision,   in   facts
and   circumstances   of   this   case.   In   view   of
above,   I   find   that   demand   of   rent   based   on
the   agreement   was   not   proper   so   as   to
consider   it   to   be   a   case   of   short   remittance
and   default   in   payment   of   rent   thereof.   In
the background aforesaid, the findings of the
default   in   payment   of   rent,   recorded   by   the
Rent   Tribunal   so   also   by   Appellate   Rent
Tribunal   cannot   be   allowed   to   stand.   The
impugned   orders   passed   by   the   Rent   Tribunal
so   also   by   Appellate   Rent   Tribunal   are   thus,
quashed. A case of default in payment of rent
is not made out.”

18
19. The observation of the High Court that landlord was
entitled   to   the   rent   as   was   payable   on   the   date   of
commencement   of   the   Act,   2001   without   its   revision   is
perfectly   correct.   The   landlord   cannot   claim   revision
of   rent   as   per   agreement   at   the   rate   of   10%   per   annum
after   the   enforcement   of   the   Act.   The   present   is   not   a
case   that   the   landlord   is   claiming   rent   after   the
enforcement   of   the   Act   by   adding   10%   increase   in   the
rent.   The   landlord's   case   throughout   is   that   the   rent
at   the   rate   of   Rs.16,564/­   per   month   was   being   paid   by
the tenant since before the commencement of the Act and
even   after   the   commencement   of   the   Act,   till   the   month
of   July,   2003   the   tenant   paid   rent   at   the   rate   of
Rs.16,564/­ per month.
20. Section   4   of   the   Act   which   deals   with   the   agreed
rent   provides   that   rent   payable   for   any   premises   shall
subject   to   the   provisions   of   this   Act,   be   such   as   may
be agreed between the landlord and the tenant. When the
tenant   was   paying   the   rent   of   Rs.16,564/­   per   month
before   the   enforcement   of   the   Act   as   per   the   rent

19
agreement,   the   said   amount   was   agreed   amount   which   was
being   paid   before   the   enforcement   of   the   Act.   It   is
true   that   in   the   agreed   amount   which   was   being   paid
immediately   before   the   commencement   of   the   Act,   the
landlord   cannot   increase   @   10%   of   the   rent   as   per
agreement.   The   increase   after   the   enforcement   of   the
Act   shall   be   in   accordance   with   Section   6   and   in   the
event   the   tenant   does   not   agree   for   the   said   increase,
the   landlord   is   free   to   file   application   under   Section
6   read   with   Section   14.   In   view   of   the   foregoing
discussion,   we   are   of   the   view   that   the   High   Court   has
not   appreciated   the   true   import   of   Sections   6   and   7   of
the   Act,   2001   in   observing   that   the   tenant   is   not   in
default.
21. One   more   submission   which   has   been   pressed   by   the
tenant   to   relieve   the   tenant   from   eviction   has   to   be
considered.   Section   9   of   the   Act   provides   for   eviction
of the tenant which is to the following effect:
“ Section   9.   Eviction   of   tenants.   ­
Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   any
other   law   or   contract   but   subject   to   other
provisions   of   this   Act,   the   Rent   Tribunal

20
shall   not   order   eviction   of   tenant   unless   it
is satisfied that, ­
(a)   the   tenant   has   neither   paid   nor   tendered
the   amount   of   rent   due   from   him   for   four
months :­
Provided   that   the   ground   under   this   clause
shall   not   be   available   to   the   landlord   if   he
has   not   disclosed   to   the   tenant   his   hank
account   number   and   name   of   the   bank   in   the
same Municipal area, in the rent  agreement  or
by   a   notice   sent   to   him   by   registered   post,
acknowledgment due :
Provided   further   that   no   petition   on   the
ground under this clause shall he filed unless
the landlord has given it notice to the tenant
by   registered   post,   acknowledgment   due,
demanding   arrears   of   rent   and   the   tenant   has
not   made   payment   of   arrears   of   rent   within   a
period   of   thirty   days   from   the   (late   of
service of notice.
Explanation. ­ For the purposes of this clause,
the rent shall be deemed to have been tendered
when the  same is  remitted through money order
to   the   landlord   by   properly   addressing   the
same; or   having   been   deposited   with   the   Rent
Authority; or”
22. Section   9(a)   provides   that   eviction   can   be   ordered
only   when   the   tenant   has   neither   paid   nor   tendered   the
rent   due   from   him   for   four   months.   He   submits   that
admittedly   after   the   receipt   of   the   notice   dated
27.03.2004   demanding   arrears   of   rent   of   Rs.1,15,945/­,

21
the   tenant   has   paid   an   amount   of   Rs.95,200/­   which
covered   the   payment   of   rent   upto   December,   2003   and
part   of   rent   of   January,   2004.   He   submits   that   notice
was   issued   demanding   arrears   of   rent   from   August,   2003
to   29.02.2004   and   the   rent   upto   December,   2003   having
been   deposited   there   was   no   default   for   four   month
entitling the landlord to claim eviction.
23. Section   9   second   proviso   of   Act,   2001   contemplates
a   notice   by   landlord   demanding   arrears   of   rent   and   the
tenant has not made payment of rent within 30 days from
the   service   of   the   notice.   The   words   “arrears   of   rent”
mean   the   arrears   as   demanded   by   notice   and   the   ground
for eviction as contemplated under Section 9(a) is “ the
tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent
due   from   him   for   four   months”.   The   payment   and
tendering of rent thus relates to rent for four months.
The   tenant   cannot   be   heard   saying   that   since   although
his   payment   was   done   complying   the   arrears   of   rent   as
demanded   but   since   he   has   made   the   payment   upto
December, 2003 and the part of January, 2004, he should
be   relieved   from   eviction.   What   Section   9   contemplates

22
is payment or tendering the amount of rent due from him
for   four   months,   thus,   tendering   of   payment   of   rent   is
rent   due   from   him   for   four   months .   In   the   event   rent
due  from   him   for   four   months   is  not  paid   the   ground  as
contemplated under Section 9(a) is made out. We in this
context   notice   a   judgment   of   this   Court   in   Prakash
Mehra   vs.   K.L.Malhotra,   (1989)   3   SCC   74.   In   the   above
case   this   Court   has   occasion   to   consider   the   provision
of   Section   14(1)(a)   of   Delhi   Rent   Control   Act.   The
arrears   demanded   by   the   notice   were   the   arrears   which
were   required   to   be   paid   by   the   tenant.   The   High   Court
has   held   that   Section   14(1)(a)   of   the   Act   made   out   a
ground   for   eviction   only   where   the   tenant   had   neither
paid   nor   tendered   the   whole   of   the   arrears   of   rent
legally   recoverable   from   him   within   two   months   of   the
date   on   which   a   notice   of   demand   for   the   arrears   of
rent   was   served   on   him   by   the   landlord.   In   the   above
case   the   contention   of   the   landlord   was   that   the   rent
which   was   due   after   the   notice   should   also   be   treated
to   be   as   defaulted   rent   which   argument   was   not
accepted.   In   paragraph   7   of   the   judgment   following   was

23
laid down:
“ 7. It   is   urged   before   us   by   learned   Counsel
for the appellant that Section 14(1)(a) of the
Act contemplates  the payment  or tender of the
whole   of   the   arrears   of   rent   legally
recoverable   from   the   tenant   on   the   date   when
the   demand   notice   is   sent   including   the   rent
which has accrued after service of the  demand
notice.   When   the   notice   was   sent   on   7   May
1976,   rent   for   the   months   of   April   and   May
1976   lad   become   due,   and   as   two   months   was
given   for   payment   of   the   arrears,   it   would
include also the rent which had accrued during
the   said   period   of   two   months.   We   are   not
satisfied   that   there   is   substance   in   the
contention.   The   arrears   of   rent   envisaged   by
Section   14(1)(a)   of   the   Act   are   the   arrears
demanded by the notice for  payment of arrears
of rent. The arrears due cannot be extended to
rent which has fallen due after service of the
notice   of   demand.   In   this   case,   the   two   bank
drafts   representing   the   arrears   of   rent
covered   by   the   notice   of   demand   had   been
tendered   within   two   months   of   the   date   of
service   of   the   notice   of   demand.   The   High
Court is right in the view taken by it. We are
not   satisfied   that   the   construction   placed   by
B.   C.   Misra,   J.   in   Jag   Ram   Nathu   Ram   v.
Surinder Kumar [S.A.O.  No. 52 of  1975 decided
on   28   April,   1976   (Del)]   and   in   S.L   Kapur   v.
Dr. Mrs. P. D. Lal, [1975 Ren C.J. 322 (Del)]
lays down the correct law on the point. ”
24. This Court in the above case has held that arrears
of   rent   as   envisaged   in   provision   of   Section   14(1)(a)

24
of   the   Delhi   Rent   Control   Act   are   the   arrears   demanded
by   the   notice   for   payment   of   arrears   of   rent.   In   the
present   case   arrears   demanded   by   the   notice   i.e.
Rs.16,564/­   per   month   starting   from   August,   2003   to
February, 2004 totalling Rs.1,15,945/­ were required to
be   paid   by   the   tenant,   the   tenant   having   paid   only
Rs.95,200/­   as   per   his   calculation   of   the   rent   at   the
rate   of   Rs.13,600/­   per   month   has   committed   default.
According   to   the   learned   counsel   for   the   tenant,   the
rent   paid   by   the   tenant   was   sufficient   to   cover   the
rent   upto   December,   2003   and   part   of   January,   2004,
admittedly,   the   arrears   as   demanded   having   not   been
paid and we having found that the landlord has demanded
arrears   of   rent   for   seven   months   according   to   rate   of
rent   Rs.16,564/­   per   month   which   was   being   paid   by   the
tenant even before the enforcement of the Act, 2001 and
after   the   enforcement   of   the   Act,   2001.   The   landlord
having   not   added   10%   increase   in   the   rent   demanded,
there was no breach of Section 6 and the High Court has
committed   error   in   allowing   the   writ   petition   of   the
tenant.

25
25. In  view  of  the   foregoing   discussions,  we   allow   the
appeals,   set   aside   the   judgment   and   order   of   the   High
Court and restore the order of the Rent Tribunal.
......................J. 
                             ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
......................J. 
                             ( K.M. JOSEPH )
New Delhi, 
January 29, 2019.