This article contains the case study of the case, 'Standard Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
vs. Gyan Chand Jain & Anr., 97(2002) DLT290' related to Delhi Rent Control act.
In this case study, various crucial sections of the limitation act and the Delhi
Rent Control Act is discussed.
Moreover, the conditions under which a tenant can
be asked for eviction under the Rent Control Act are also being elaborators
discussed. The Supreme Court has answered various questions which are in
ambiguity and those terms about which the rent control act is silent. The
questions of jurisdiction of various courts under the act are also being
discussed in the case. So, this is the case study where the eviction of the
tenant and the increase of rent of the landlord were in question.
Questions of law/ issues raised
- The facts of the case as they emerge from the record that on 1st April
1968 the said premises were let out to standard pharmaceutical ltd, 24, Park
Street, Calcutta by the respondent. Where under the appellant had an
agreement to pay the rent to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 2000. After the lapse of
the years, the rent was increased from 2000 rs to 2500/-wef 1st April 1983, and
further, after 5 years, the rent was again increased from 2500 rs to 3000 on 1st
April 1988. After the amendment in the Rent Control Act in 1988, the plaintiff
landlord gave a notice dated 5th January 1991 and increased the rent 10% from
3000 rs per month to 3,300 per month.
- Therefore, the tenant failed to pay the rent. The plaintiff filed a
petition for the eviction in the court of rent controller and the defendant
gave notice and filed the suit under section 6 and section 9 of the Delhi
Rent Control Act 1958 for the determination of the standard rent of the said
- The tenant filed a written statement/reply to the aforesaid petition for
the eviction filed by the landlord and disputed the jurisdiction of the
civil court under section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and contended
that there was no cause of action. On the other hand, the landlord denied
that the rent was ever increased from 2000 rs to 3,300 rs. And he was receiving rent at
the rate of 2000 rs plus 1300 per month as a service charge.
Contention of petitioner
- Whether the word 'rent' includes payment in respect of amenities or
services provided by the landlord under the terms of tenancy?
- Whether the agreement between the landlord and the tenant in regards to
additional amenities come under the scope of DRC ACT, 1958?
- Whether the civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain the suit in
view of the provisions under section 50 of the DRS act, 1958?
- Whether the order passed by the learned trial court and the appellate
court is justified?
Contention of respondent
- The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the delay of
filing an appeal was not properly explained by the landlord as the result as
it was refused to entertain the application for the condition of delay by
the appellate court and in support of his contention, the counsel relied
upon the case of Banwari Lal vs. Union of India in which the court held that the mistake
of the Council could not be treated to be bonafide and delay must be properly
explained day by day and with just and reasonable cause.
- The learned Counsel for the appellants also urged that the learned trial
Court was not justified in taking judicial notice of the fact of an increase
of rents the next contention of Counsel appearing for the appellant that the
interest awarded by the learned Trial Court for the damages is unknown in
- It was argued that the notice which purports to increase the rent by 10%
was received even then the rent could be deemed to have a raised to 2,200 rs
it was contended that the petitioner/ tenant had already admitted deposit the
rent excluding the furniture rental in the terms of the direction of the court
under Section 11(1) d under Bihar building lease rent and eviction Control Act,
- And since the landlord denied the supply of the furniture and the plea
was not allowed to be raised by the landlord.
- It was contested that there have been loopholes in the order passed by
the trial court and the appellate court. as the suit is barred by the
provisions of section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
- In the present case, the lease deed only rent of 2000 rs was
mentioned. the charges which are payable by the petitioner/tenant to the
respondent /landlord as maintenance charges would also fall in the ambit of the
- The notice of the enhancement of further rent was not given as per the
terms and conditions defined under section 6 A and Section 8 of the Delhi
Rent Control Act.
- The learned counsel submitted that it is not an admitted fact that rent
stood increased by service of the notice, for there was no such admission in
the written statement.
- The application allowed by the learned trial court under order 12 rule 6
was not justified and it needed to be modified by the court because there
was a material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order.
- The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Civil Court
has full jurisdiction for the matter would fall within the jurisdiction of
the rent controller for the purposes of the eviction.
- The respondent submits that there was a just and reasonable cause for
the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal in the appellate court. The
learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, on the other hand, argued that
the onus of proving the rate of rent was upon both the parties and not upon
the respondent alone. He submitted that the respondent had discharged the
onus placed upon him, but the appellant had miserably failed to discharge
- It was argued that the service charges are not included in the term 'rent'.
- The rate of the rent in the term of lease deed is only 2,000 and 1300
were payable as service charges which have been increased later.
- the learned senior counsel in the support of his contention relies upon
the case of Karnami properties Limited vs. Augustin in which the court
observed that although the expression 'rent' has not defined but also the
payment in respect of the amenities are the services provided by the landlord
into the term of the tenancy.
- It was a default in the payment of the rent, the rent that was fixed by
the rent controller which would furnish ground for eviction under section
11(1) d of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
- It was contended that the suit was not barred under provisions of
section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act as it was already ordered by the
additional district judge.
- it was contended that the service charges are not part of the term 'rent' and thus the rate of the rent up to 31st March was 3300/-
- the learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the trial
court has based its judgment on some form of res judicata, in that, the trial
court has held that the finding of the Rent Controller (RC) that the rent of
premises was Rs.3630 per month has become final between the parties.
- As the learned trial court allowed the application under Order 12 rule 6
was justified as there was no material irregularity or illegality in the
impugned order and it was also argued that the relationship between the
petitioner and the respondent was governed by the Delhi rent Control Act.
(Reasoning and point of laws, interpretation of law and connection with facts of
- Limitation act, 1963- section-5
- Delhi rent control act, 1958 - section- 3, 6A, 8
- Code of civil procedure(CPC), 1908- Order 12, Rule 6
Observation of court
- It is a well-established proposition of the law that the rental deals
are subject to National legislation and the landlord cannot include clauses,
which goes along the lines of something like a deal in paying for rent will
result in water/electricity being cut.
- The landlord cannot evict a tenant for no apparent reason. The eviction
must always have a strong and valid reason behind it. The word rent not only
includes what is originally described as rent in the agreement between a
landlord and the tenant under the agreement between them.
- Any payment made towards the maintenance charges of the premises, any
amenities provided to the tenant, and all payments which are agreed to be
paid by a tenant to his landlord for the use, occupation also of furnishing,
electric installations would also fall under the purview of the expression
- The court observed that it was a default in the payment of the rent,
that rent is fixed by the rent controller and it would furnish a ground for
eviction under section 11(1) d of the act. The default of the furniture rent
which is agreed by the defendant subsequent to lease cannot be brought
within the mischief of section 11 (1) d which entitled the landlord to a
decrease of eviction. as per the findings of the first appellate Court, the
furniture rent remains divorced from the rent of the premises. under the
- The court has also observed that even if the furniture was returned, in
that case, the lease for the buildings still would not be affected. The
court was unable to see any justification for the same as the findings of
the learned trial court appear to be passed on a correct appreciation of the
facts and the evidence adduced before the trial court in the light of the
law laid down by this Court
- The court also rejected the contention which stated that in the case of
default in the payment of rent where the furniture could be withdrawn
without any eviction from the tenanted premises in the same matter and held
that it was a different matter and it could not be said about the service.
- The court also held that the tenancy which carries with it certain
amenities, which need to be provided or services to be maintained by the
landlord, is under the scope of the act.
- if it does not fall under the scope of the act then the landlord has a
right to impose conditions within the reference to supply of amenities as
binding terms of tenancy on the tenant and also may circumvent the
provisions of the act.
- An agreement related to the payment for the furniture was according to
the finding of an independent contractor that is unconnected with the
- The court also held that the suit is not barred under the provisions of
section 50 of the daily control rent act.
- The law also settles to consolidate the considerable figure of rent of
objection relating to jurisdiction under section 50 of the Delhi control
- The court denied the proposition that the service charge would not
include the term rent.
- While considering the scope of section 50 of the Delhi control rent act,
the charges which are paid to the respondent by the petitioner as
maintenance charges would also come under the expression rent.
- In the view of the foregoing case law, the court now starts to assume
that a service charge of Rs.13000 is also part of the expression 'rent' and
thus the rate of rent up to 31st March 1994 was also Rs. 3300.
- section 6 A states that if there is no standard rent fixed in respect of
any premises, the landlord may increase by 10% every three years.
- Section 8 A states that if the landlord wishes to increase the rent in
respect of any premises he must send a notice of his intention to increase
the rent to the tenant as such increase is lawful under the act. It shall be
due and recovered only in respect of the period of the tenancy only after
the expiry of the 30 days from the date on which the notice is sent and such
notice shall be in writing and signed by the landlord and must be in a
manner provided under section 106 of the transfer of the property act, 1882.
- The court held that until and unless the service for notice under
section 6 A read with Section 8 is not being disputed, its impact is
required to be seen.
- The rent could be legally increased after three years and held that the
rate of rent on 1st April 1994 was raised to 3630/- the court justified the
order passed by the trial court to allow the application under Order 12 rule
- After filing a review petition before the court, the court finds nothing
material illegality or irregularity with the impugned order of the Learned
Trial Court and Appellate court and therefore dismiss the partition without
any interference in the impugned order and left the parties to bear their
own costs as the question of law involved in the court.
- no landlord or tenant has a right to cut off or withhold any essential
supply or service enjoyed by the tenant or the landlord without any just and
sufficient cause, in respect of the premises, let to him. Rent authority may
pass an order for the restoration of the amenities and immediately or may
pass any other interim order if the authorities satisfied that the essential
supply your services cut off enjoyed by the tenant was cut off without any
Justin sufficient cause.
The Rent Control Act was passed by the parliament to protect the interest of the
tenants. But sometimes this act is also being misused by the tenants. Under the
act, a landlord can ask the tenant for the eviction of its premises under some
conditions only. The act needs to be a little liberal for landlords. However, in
the present case, the court has given the order in the support of the landlord.
But on the contrary to this, it is also unauthorized to cut off the supply of
At most of the places, the landlords take the service charges for
electricity, water, etc. along with Rent. The MPCs service is recently provided
by the government and is also used in various parts and societies in UP could be
a solution to this problem. MPCs are being provided by the government so that
tenant can easily pay their water, electricity bills to the competent authority.