Standard rent limitation and repeat default protection under rent law bar belated defence pleas and sustain eviction.
Standard rent under the Delhi Rent Control Act can be fixed only through the statutory procedure within the limitation period prescribed by section 12, and a tenant cannot revive that question as a defence in eviction proceedings after limitation has expired. The Act also does not allow interim rent or a written-statement plea to bypass that limitation. Protection under section 14(2) is available only where the tenant complies with the required payment or deposit, and it is unavailable to a tenant who has already once obtained that benefit and then again defaulted in rent for three consecutive months. The eviction order was upheld on both grounds.
Issues: (i) Whether, in a proceeding for eviction under section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the tenant could seek fixation of standard rent in defence notwithstanding the period of limitation prescribed for an application under section 12; (ii) whether the tenant was entitled to the protection of section 14(2) after having earlier obtained the benefit of that sub-section in respect of the same premises.
Issue (i): Whether, in a proceeding for eviction under section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the tenant could seek fixation of standard rent in defence notwithstanding the period of limitation prescribed for an application under section 12.
Analysis: The scheme of the Act makes standard rent a matter to be fixed by the Controller under section 9, and section 12 prescribes the period within which such fixation may be sought. Sections 4 and 5 operate only after standard rent is determined, and until then the contractual rent governs the tenant's liability. Section 15(3) contemplates interim rent where there is a dispute as to rent payable, but it does not create an independent power to determine standard rent outside section 12. A tenant cannot evade the statutory limitation by raising a belated request in a written statement in eviction proceedings.
Conclusion: The tenant was not entitled to have standard rent determined in defence after the expiry of limitation, and the refusal to do so was correct.
Issue (ii): Whether the tenant was entitled to the protection of section 14(2) after having earlier obtained the benefit of that sub-section in respect of the same premises.
Analysis: Section 14(2) bars an order for recovery of possession only when the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by section 15. A mere application for fixation of standard rent is not such payment or deposit. The proviso to section 14(2) further disentitles a tenant who has once obtained that benefit and then again defaults in payment of rent for three consecutive months. On the facts, the tenant had already secured disposal of an earlier eviction proceeding by complying with the payment direction, and thereafter again defaulted.
Conclusion: The tenant was not entitled to the protection of section 14(2), and the eviction order was sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both substantive grounds, and the eviction order was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, standard rent can be fixed only through the procedure prescribed by the Act within the statutory period of limitation, and a tenant cannot defeat that limitation by raising the issue for the first time as a defence in eviction proceedings; further, the statutory protection against eviction for default is unavailable to a tenant who has already once obtained that benefit and thereafter again defaults.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
