Aditya AK and Chandan Goswami.The Supreme Court has held that the rent recovered from a tenant under the provisions of the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) Act cannot be considered as part of the rent for the purpose of seeking eviction of the tenant..The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Abdul Nazeer, which addressed an important question of law as to whether property tax recoverable from the tenant under Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act (as arrears of rent) can be considered to be part of the rent for the purpose of seeking eviction from a property if the amount of rent exceeds Rs. 3500 per month inclusive of all taxes..While deciding this issue, the Bench held that the NDMC Act was not a special enactment and could not override provisions of the Delhi Rent Act..The appellant in this case is the owner of a property situated at Connaught Place by the name Atma Ram Mansion, which comes under the jurisdiction of the NDMC. The respondent was a tenant in the suit property who was paying around Rs. 1500 per month as rent..After an amendment to the NDMC byelaws, the house tax on the property in question was assessable on the basis of Unit Area System, in accordance with which the total house tax payable was in excess of Rs. 9 lakh. The appellant contended that the respondent was liable to pay this amount..It was also the appellant’s argument that the tax paid on the suit property was far more than the initial rent, and that the amount of property tax levied by NDMC became recoverable as arrears of rent. Further, the suit property having fetched rent above Rs.3500/- per month, has ceased the protection of the Delhi Rent Act..On the respondent’s refusal to pay the said amount, the appellant terminated his tenancy and filed a suit for a decree of possession, as well as damages. The trial court, had, in August 2013, granted the same. However, this order would be set aside by the Delhi High Court in 2016. Therefore, the appellant sought to appeal the High Court order before the Supreme Court..In the apex court, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave appeared for the appellant, while Senior Advocate Vikas Singh represented the respondent..While dismissing the appeal, the Bench observed that though the Rent Act was enacted earlier than the NDMC Act, it is not a special enactment insofar as the landlord-tenant issue is concerned. The Court held,.“The object of the Rent Act is to provide protection to tenants who under common law, including Transfer of Property Act could be evicted from the premises let out to them at any time by the landlord on the termination of their tenancy. It restricts the right of the landlord to evict the tenant at their will. It is a special law in relation to landlord and tenant issue. Therefore, the Rent Act has to prevail insofar as landlord and tenant issue is concerned.”.The Court also delved into its previous judgments to note that an earlier enactment will prevail over a latter enactment even if, there is a non-obstante clause in the latter enactment, if it were to be held that the earlier enactment is a special enactment on the particular subject being in issue..Therefore, the Court held that the NDMC Act does not override the Rent Act, and that arrears of rent cannot be construed as part of the rent for the purpose of seeking eviction..“Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act merely gives a right to recover the 21 tax in respect of the premises as rent. It does not override the Rent Act insofar as obviating the effect of Section 7(2) of the Rent Act. In our opinion, the tax recoverable from the tenant under Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act as arrears of rent by the appellant cannot be considered to be forming part of the rent for the purpose of seeking eviction/ejectment of the respondent who defaults in payment of such recoverable tax as rent.”.Read the judgment:
Aditya AK and Chandan Goswami.The Supreme Court has held that the rent recovered from a tenant under the provisions of the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) Act cannot be considered as part of the rent for the purpose of seeking eviction of the tenant..The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Abdul Nazeer, which addressed an important question of law as to whether property tax recoverable from the tenant under Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act (as arrears of rent) can be considered to be part of the rent for the purpose of seeking eviction from a property if the amount of rent exceeds Rs. 3500 per month inclusive of all taxes..While deciding this issue, the Bench held that the NDMC Act was not a special enactment and could not override provisions of the Delhi Rent Act..The appellant in this case is the owner of a property situated at Connaught Place by the name Atma Ram Mansion, which comes under the jurisdiction of the NDMC. The respondent was a tenant in the suit property who was paying around Rs. 1500 per month as rent..After an amendment to the NDMC byelaws, the house tax on the property in question was assessable on the basis of Unit Area System, in accordance with which the total house tax payable was in excess of Rs. 9 lakh. The appellant contended that the respondent was liable to pay this amount..It was also the appellant’s argument that the tax paid on the suit property was far more than the initial rent, and that the amount of property tax levied by NDMC became recoverable as arrears of rent. Further, the suit property having fetched rent above Rs.3500/- per month, has ceased the protection of the Delhi Rent Act..On the respondent’s refusal to pay the said amount, the appellant terminated his tenancy and filed a suit for a decree of possession, as well as damages. The trial court, had, in August 2013, granted the same. However, this order would be set aside by the Delhi High Court in 2016. Therefore, the appellant sought to appeal the High Court order before the Supreme Court..In the apex court, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave appeared for the appellant, while Senior Advocate Vikas Singh represented the respondent..While dismissing the appeal, the Bench observed that though the Rent Act was enacted earlier than the NDMC Act, it is not a special enactment insofar as the landlord-tenant issue is concerned. The Court held,.“The object of the Rent Act is to provide protection to tenants who under common law, including Transfer of Property Act could be evicted from the premises let out to them at any time by the landlord on the termination of their tenancy. It restricts the right of the landlord to evict the tenant at their will. It is a special law in relation to landlord and tenant issue. Therefore, the Rent Act has to prevail insofar as landlord and tenant issue is concerned.”.The Court also delved into its previous judgments to note that an earlier enactment will prevail over a latter enactment even if, there is a non-obstante clause in the latter enactment, if it were to be held that the earlier enactment is a special enactment on the particular subject being in issue..Therefore, the Court held that the NDMC Act does not override the Rent Act, and that arrears of rent cannot be construed as part of the rent for the purpose of seeking eviction..“Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act merely gives a right to recover the 21 tax in respect of the premises as rent. It does not override the Rent Act insofar as obviating the effect of Section 7(2) of the Rent Act. In our opinion, the tax recoverable from the tenant under Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act as arrears of rent by the appellant cannot be considered to be forming part of the rent for the purpose of seeking eviction/ejectment of the respondent who defaults in payment of such recoverable tax as rent.”.Read the judgment:
