Tenant's duty to tender rent arrears prevails, while application particulars rules are directory absent prejudice.

Under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, the tenant's primary duty under the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) was to tender the arrears of rent due, while the Rent Controller's role was limited to calculating interest and costs; the Controller was not required at the first hearing to determine the arrears of rent, and failure to tender the full arrears invalidated the deposit. The Rules governing particulars in the ejectment application were held directory, not mandatory, because the effect of non-compliance depended on purpose, prejudice and statutory object; omission to state the arrears did not vitiate proceedings where no prejudice was shown. The ejectment order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, the Rent Controller was bound in the first instance to calculate and determine the arrears of rent and interest payable by the tenant; and (ii) whether Rule 4(c), Rule 5(1) and Rule 6 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1976 were mandatory so that omission to state the amount of arrears due in the ejectment application rendered the proceedings invalid.

Issue (i): Whether, under the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, the Rent Controller was bound in the first instance to calculate and determine the arrears of rent and interest payable by the tenant?

Analysis: The proviso required the tenant, within fifteen days of the first hearing after due service, to pay or tender the arrears of rent and the interest calculated by the Controller at eight per cent per annum, together with costs, if any. The statutory scheme placed the primary obligation on the tenant to pay the actual arrears due. The Controller's role was confined to calculating interest and costs; no duty was cast on the Controller to determine the arrears of rent at the first hearing. Acceptance of the tenant's contention would contradict the scheme of the provision and would require an enquiry into arrears on the first date without evidence.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the failure to tender the full arrears made the deposit invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 4(c), Rule 5(1) and Rule 6 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1976 were mandatory so that omission to state the amount of arrears due in the ejectment application rendered the proceedings invalid?

Analysis: The question whether a provision framed in mandatory language is truly mandatory or merely directory depends on the object, purpose, scope and consequences of non-compliance. The word "shall" is not ative in itself. Applying that approach, the rules concerning the particulars to be stated in the application were held to be directory, not mandatory. The omission to specify the amount of arrears in the application caused no invalidating consequence, especially where no prejudice to the tenant was shown and the tenant was aware of the arrears claimed.

Conclusion: The rules were held to be directory, and the omission did not vitiate the ejectment proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The tenant failed on both contentions, and the order of ejectment was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a rent-control proviso places the duty to tender arrears on the tenant, the Controller is not obliged at the first hearing to quantify the arrears of rent; and procedural requirements in the application are directory if their non-compliance causes no prejudice and does not defeat the statutory purpose.

---