Supreme Court restores eviction order due to non-payment of rent, emphasizes parties' conduct

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal and the Rent Controller, directing the eviction of the respondent company for non-payment of rent. The appellant was awarded costs, and the respondent was given six months to vacate the premises. The Court also noted that the High Court's consideration of abandoned points was criticized, emphasizing the importance of parties' conduct and litigation history in legal proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and right to collect rent.
2. Relationship of landlord and tenant.
3. Validity of notice to quit.
4. Non-payment of rent and eviction proceedings.
5. Amendment of written statement and delay.
6. High Court's consideration of abandoned points.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership and Right to Collect Rent:
The appellant, Gauri Shanker, was declared the owner of the disputed property through a compromise decree in a partition suit, effective from January 1, 1958. Despite notifying the respondent company, the rent was not paid to him. The respondent company, managed by Krishan Lal's son-in-law, D. Sanghi, initially denied the appellant's ownership and refused to attorn to him.

2. Relationship of Landlord and Tenant:
The Rent Control Tribunal affirmed that Gauri Shanker was the exclusive owner and landlord, entitled to recover arrears of rent from the respondent company. The Tribunal's finding was based on a thorough examination of evidence, which was also upheld by the Rent Controller.

3. Validity of Notice to Quit:
The High Court held that the notice of demand served by the appellant did not terminate the contractual tenancy but was merely a demand for arrears of rent, rendering it invalid for eviction purposes. This point was not contested seriously by the respondent before the High Court.

4. Non-payment of Rent and Eviction Proceedings:
The respondent failed to deposit the arrears of rent within the stipulated period as ordered under Section 15(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Rent Control Tribunal upheld the appellant's contention that strict compliance with the order was necessary for the tenant to avail protection from eviction.

5. Amendment of Written Statement and Delay:
The respondent sought to amend the written statement to include a plea of want of notice to quit after eight years of litigation. The Rent Controller allowed the amendment, but the Supreme Court opined that such an amendment should not have been permitted due to the respondent's delay and the prejudice caused to the appellant.

6. High Court's Consideration of Abandoned Points:
The High Court entertained and decided points not raised or abandoned before the Rent Control Tribunal, including the validity of the notice to quit. The Supreme Court criticized this approach, emphasizing that the High Court should have considered the conduct of the parties and the litigation history before allowing such points to be argued.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal and the Rent Controller, which directed the eviction of the respondent. The appellant was entitled to costs, and the respondent company was given six months to vacate the premises. The other appeal related to striking out the defense became infructuous due to the main appeal's success.

---