HUSSAIN BUX vs Haji YAKOOB and another
This matter arises from eviction proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondents concerning a shop-cum-godown premises. A tentative rent order was passed directing the respondents to pay rent by the 10th of every calendar month. The petitioner filed an application to strike off the respondents' defence due to an alleged default in depositing rent for the month of May, 1987, which was deposited on 7-7-1987. The Rent Controller struck off the defence and ordered eviction. On appeal, the High Court reversed the order, accepting the respondents' explanation regarding the court closure in June, 1987, and condoned the delay. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in condoning the minor delay in depositing rent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's exercise of discretion based on sufficient cause shown for a one-month default was proper. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that minor defaults coupled with reasonable explanations regarding court closures can be condoned under judicial discretion.
- Whether the defence of a tenant can be struck off for a minor delay in depositing rent when sufficient cause is shown?
- Can the High Court condone a default in the payment of rent under rent laws?
- Whether the exercise of discretion by the High Court in accepting an explanation for delayed rent deposit warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
' S.A. NUSRAT, J.---The proceedings of eviction were filed in respect of a shop-cum-godown premises in this case by the petitioner whereupon a tentative rent order was passed on 26-3-1987 by the learned Rent Controller. It appears that after complying with the order with regard to the payment of the arrears of rent, the respondents deposited rent for the month of May, 1987 on 7-7- 1987 although in terms of the tentative rent order they were required to pay rent by the 10th of every calendar month. In the circumstances, an application for striking off the defence was moved by the petitioner alleging default in payment of rent for the months of April and May, 1987. The question of default in payment of rent for the month of April, 1987 was not pressed. It was the default in deposit of rent for the month of May, 1987, which was made point in the case. The petitioner succeeded before the Rent Controller and the defence of the respondents was struck off as per order dated 8- 9-1987 and the respondents were directed to vacate the disputed premises.
2. On first appeal the order of the Rent Controller was reversed by the learned High Court accepting the explanation of the respondents that the Court was closed in the month of June, 1987 and hence they were under the impression that after opening of the Court they were still entitled to deposit rent on or before 10th of July, 1987. The default was for only one month and was condoned by the learned High Court and it cannot be said that the discretion was exercised without sufficient cause having been shown.
' The petition merits no consideration and is dismissed accordingly.