Delhi District Court
Sh. Govind Narain vs Dharam Raj Pandey on 19 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. A.K. CHAWLA : RENT CONTROL
TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL): DELHI
RCT - 25/2014
Unique Case ID No.02401C0098592014
1. Sh. Govind Narain
S/o Sh. Brij Kishore
2. Sh. Sanjai
S/o Sh. Govind Narain Seth
3. Sh. Vikas
S/o Sh. Govind Narain Seth
All R/o 10-A/A, Under Hill Lane,
Civil Lines,
New Delhi -110 054. ..... Appellants
Versus
Dharam Raj Pandey
(i) Village Pranjot, Police Station Kurebhar,
Dhanpat Ganj Bazar, Mahabiran Road,
District Sultanpur, U.P.
(ii) R/o H. No. 325, Village Raghavpur
Constituency Issuli, District Sultanpur, U.P.
(iii) Servant Quarters, 10 A/A,
Underhill Lane, Civil Lines, Delhi. ..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 28.02.2014
Date of pronouncement : 19.03.2016
JUDGMENT
Appeal is preferred against order dated 24.1.2014 passed by the ld. ARC, whereby, an application filed by the tenant- respondent under Order 7 R. 11 CPC in short 'the said application' in RCT- 25/2014 Page 1/8 the eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord-appellants under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in short 'the DRC Act', was allowed and the eviction petition was rejected having no cause of action.
2. Precisely, the facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that the appellants had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of 'the DRC Act' against the respondent in respect of one room (private no.8) forming part of servant quarters of property no.10A/A, Underhill Lane, Civil Lines, Delhi in short 'the subject premises'. It proceeded on the premise that in the earlier eviction proceedings initiated by the appellants against the respondent U/s 14(1)(a)((g) & (j) of 'the DRC Act', the ld. ARC vide order dated 28.2.2011 had held that the petition U/s 14(1)(a) of 'the DRC Act' stood proved and the benefit was granted to the respondent U/s 14(2) of 'the DRC Act' vide order dated 7.4.2011. It was alleged that after availing the benefit U/s 14(2) of 'the DRC Act, the respondent had failed to pay the rent w.e.f. 1.4.2011 and had committed more than three consecutive defaults in payment of rent. Consequently, the appellants got notice dated 13.1.2012 issued and that, in the reply RCT- 25/2014 Page 2/8 dated 25.1.2012, the respondent had falsely stated that the rent upto December, 2011 stood already paid. Rent from 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2013 was also averred to be deposited by the respondent in the Court of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra, the then Sr. Civil Judge-cum- Rent Controller, Delhi. In the written statement filed, the respondent denied the assertions and the allegations. Respondent also filed an application U/o 7 R. 11 CPC seeking rejection of the petition. 'The said application' filed by the respondent proceeded on the premise that the respondent has been regularly paying the due rents and for the past few years, he has been depositing the rent in the Court. It was also averred that the respondent had deposited the rent up till the period of 31.12.2013 in the Court of Sh. Praveen Singh, ld. ARC and that, the appellants had challenged such deposit being not valid, but, the ld. ARC had held the deposit to be valid. In the reply, the appellants denied the assertions and the allegations made in 'the said application'. Vide the impugned order, the ld. ARC allowed 'the said application' and rejected the eviction petition.
3. I have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
RCT- 25/2014 Page 3/8
4. The eviction petition proceeded on the premise of three consecutive defaults in payment of rent w.e.f. 1.4.2011 and for the defaults so committed, the appellants had served notice dated 13.1.2012. Receipt of such notice is not in dispute and the only question for consideration is, as to whether the respondent had committed three consecutive defaults in payment of rent. In that context, the observations made by the ld. ARC in para 3 of the impugned order are as follows :
".......................................................................................... ............................................................................................ In this background, the present application has been filed by the respondent claiming that there is no cause of action which ever arose in favor of the petitioner as no default has been made on behalf of the respondent with respect to the payment of rent as what to speak of non- payment of rent for three consecutive months starting from 01.04.2011, the factual position is that the respondent has deposited the rent for the period January 2011 to December 2011 u/s 27 of the DRC Act in the Court of Sh. D.K. Sharma, the then Ld. ARC amount to Rs.300/- @ Rs.25/- per month of 07.01.2011 itself and in the court of Sh. S.K. Malhotra, for the period January 2012 to December 2013 on 19.01.2012 amounting to Rs.576/- @ Rs.241/- per month in advance"
As regards the factual conspectus of deposit of rent for the period from January, 2011 to December, 2011 U/s 27 of 'the DRC Act' on 7.1.2011, as observed to in the impugned order, it has RCT- 25/2014 Page 4/8 remained uncontroverted even in the grounds of appeal. It is also not the case of the appellants that they were unaware of such deposit of rent nor has come to be contended so by the ld. Counsel for the appellants, during the course of hearing.
5. Ld. counsel for the appellants on her part strenuously contended that the appellants had never refused any money order as alleged in the application U/s 27 of 'the DRC Act' and the deposit of rent for the period from January, 2011 to December 2011 in one go, was invalid inasmuch as, it was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 27 of 'the DRC Act'. In support of her such submissions, ld. Counsel placed reliance upon 2009 RLR 369 (SC) Sarla Goel Vs. Kishan Chand; (2010) DLT 134 Puneet Bajaj Vs. Baldev Kr. Pahwa; Vol. IXXII-1970 PLR 105 Hafiz Zahirud-din Ahmad vs. Pandit Shiv Narain; 1971 RCR 854 M/s Pruthi Brothers & Ors. Vs. Shrimati Mangla Wati; 30 (1986) DLT 386 R.C. Madan Vs. Atma Devi; AIR 2003 SC 153 E. Palanisamy Vs. Palanisamy (D) by LRs & Ors.; (2005) 7 SCC 211 Atma Ram Vs. Shakuntla Rani; and, 154(2008) DLT 546 Jinender Kumar Vs. Inder Preet Singh.
RCT- 25/2014 Page 5/8
6. Ld. counsel for the respondent on his part contended that the rents were regularly tendered by the respondent to the appellants, but, the appellants have been refusing to accept and every attempt was being made by the appellants to create a situation to somehow evict the respondent from the premises. Also, in his submissions, our own Hon'ble High Court in Jinender Kumar's case (supra) has held that future rent could be deposited under Section 27 of 'the DRC Act'.
7. In Sarla Goel's case (supra), construction of Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Then, it was a case, where the tenant having availed the benefit of Section 14(2) of 'the DRC Act', sent the arrears of rent after the receipt of the demand notice and then deposited the rent U/s 27 of the DRC Act. Facts of that case are quite distinct from the case in hand. In the case in hand, it does appear that to the very knowledge of the appellants, the rent stood deposited in advance inasmuch as, as on 7.1.2011, the rent stood deposited from January 2011 to December 2011 and as on the date of the notice dated 13.1.2012, no three consecutive defaults in payment of rent could be attributed to the respondent. Punit Bajaj's case (supra) is equally of no avail to the RCT- 25/2014 Page 6/8 appellants inasmuch as, it was a case, where the ld. ARC signed the treasury challans of tenant for depositing of money in the proceedings U/o 9 R. 13 CPC, though there was no order for such deposit and it was observed that the deposits were deceitful. Facts of the other judgments relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the appellants are also quite distinct from the case in hand and in my considered view, have no relevance to the case in hand.
In relation to the deposit of advance rent U/s 27 of 'the DRC Act', our own Hon'ble High Court in 154 (2008) DLT 546 Jinender Kumar Vs. Inder Preet Singh has held that the tenant can deposit the future rent also U/s 27 of 'the DRC Act' and the observations made in para 4 thereof, are as under :
"Where a tenant tenders rent to the landlord and landlord refuses to accept the rent, the tenant can deposit the rent under Section 27 of Delhi Rent Control Act by giving particulars as required thereunder. It is not necessary for the tenant that he should take rounds of the Court every month if landlord is not accepting the rent. The tenant can deposit the future rent also under Section 27 of the Act. There is no bar on deposit of future rent under Section 27 of the Act."
In view of the foregoing, when it is well shown that the rent stood deposited in advance for the period from January 2011 to RCT- 25/2014 Page 7/8 December 2011, not only the notice dated 13.1.2012, the petition filed was also without any cause of action. It appears that the appellants are keeping the respondent involved in diverse actions to somehow seek her eviction from the premises in question.
8. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is meritless and dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/-.
Announced in the open Court (A.K. Chawla)
on this 19th day of March, 2016 Rent Control Tribunal (Central)
Delhi
RCT- 25/2014 Page 8/8