Tenant's Ejectment Upheld for Rent Non-Payment

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower courts, confirming the ejectment of the tenant for non-payment of rent. The landlord's entitlement to claim enhanced rent was rejected, and procedural non-compliance regarding specifying arrears did not invalidate the ejectment application. The Court held that the tenant failed to pay the full arrears as required, leading to liability for ejectment under the Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the tenant's arguments were deemed meritless, with costs awarded against the tenant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-payment of rent by the tenant.
2. Entitlement of the landlord to claim enhanced rent.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 and related Rules.
4. Calculation and determination of arrears of rent by the Rent Controller.
5. Validity of the application for ejectment based on the non-mention of specific arrears.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-payment of Rent by the Tenant:
The respondent, the owner of the tenanted premises, filed a petition for ejectment before the Rent Controller against the tenant on the grounds of non-payment of rent from 1.5.74. The Rent Controller found that the tenant had failed to pay the rent from 1.4.75 and directed the ejectment of the tenant. This order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and subsequently by the High Court, which found that the tenant had not proved the payment of arrears as claimed. The tenant's failure to pay the rent due led to his liability for ejectment under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act.

2. Entitlement of the Landlord to Claim Enhanced Rent:
The landlord claimed that under the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, the rent was liable to be increased from Rs.950 to Rs.1142 per month. However, the Rent Controller held that the landlord was only entitled to recover the rent at the agreed rate of Rs.950 per month. The tenant resisted the application, arguing that the landlord was not entitled to claim enhanced rent and no legal notice was served on him for the arrears of rent.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The tenant argued that the application for ejectment was not maintainable as it did not specify the amount of arrears due, as required by Clause 'C' of Rule 4 and Clause (1) of Rule 5 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1976. The High Court rejected this argument, noting that no such objection was raised at earlier stages and that no prejudice was caused to the tenant due to this non-compliance.

4. Calculation and Determination of Arrears by the Rent Controller:
The tenant's counsel argued that the Rent Controller failed to calculate and determine the quantum of arrears of rent as required by the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act. The High Court and the Supreme Court found that there was no statutory duty on the Rent Controller to determine the arrears of rent at the first hearing. The tenant was obligated to calculate and pay the arrears within 15 days of the first hearing. The Courts held that the tenant had not deposited the full and valid rent due, and thus, the deposit was not legally valid.

5. Validity of the Application for Ejectment:
The tenant contended that the application for ejectment should be dismissed due to non-compliance with Rule 4(c), which requires specifying the amount of arrears due. The Supreme Court held that the rules were directory, not mandatory, and non-compliance did not invalidate the application. The tenant was aware of the arrears, and no prejudice was caused by the non-mention of the specific amount. The High Court's view that no prejudice was caused was upheld.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenant had not paid the full arrears of rent and that the procedural non-compliance did not invalidate the application for ejectment. The tenant's contentions were found to be without merit, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

---