Delhi District Court
Prem Singh vs Virender Singh Yadav on 21 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.K. GAUBA: DISTRICT JUDGE
(SOUTH) - CUM - ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL
TRIBUNAL, SAKET, NEW DELHI
ARCT No. 30/2012
ID No.: 02406C0093172012
Prem Singh
s/o Sh. Sita Ram
R/o H. No. 130, Village Devli
New Delhi.
Second Address:
Shop No. F113/1, Arjun Nagar,
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi. ... Appellant.
Versus
Virender Singh Yadav
s/o Sh. Richpal Singh,
R/o 113, Arjun Nagar,
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi. ... Respondent.
Instituted on: 24.04.2012
Judgment reserved on: 21.01.2013
Judgment pronounced on :21.01.2013
J U D G M E N T
1. This appeal under Section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act ARCT No. 30/2012 Prem Singh Vs. Virender Singh Yadav 1 of 6 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") challenges the correctness and legality of the judgment dated 07.03.2012 passed by Sh. Sandeep Yadav, Rent Controller (South) on the file of eviction case registered as E65/22 (earlier no. E E21/08), whereby an order of eviction was passed against the appellant under Section 14(1)(a) DRC Act in respect of tenanted premises bearing no. F113/1 situated in property no. F113, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.
2. On notice, respondent has appeared to contest the appeal.
3. I have heard Sh. D. K. Mishra, advocate for the appellant and Sh. Virender Nath, advocate for the respondent. I have gone through the trial court record.
4. The parties are substantially on common ground with each other. It is admitted case that the appellant has been a tenant in the premises in question, the earlier rate of rent being Rs. 600/ per month. It is conceded that appellant had earlier made a default in payment of rent which resulted in proceedings being taken out by the respondent for his eviction on the ground under Section 14 (1)(a) DRC Act. The said earlier case resulted in judgment dated 03.02.2003 and since the appellant had complied with the order under Section 15(1) DRC Act, the ARCT No. 30/2012 Prem Singh Vs. Virender Singh Yadav 2 of 6 benefit of protection under Section 14(2) DRC Act was extended to him. The said litigation attained finality as the order was not challenged before the superior court. For the sake of convenience, the appellant hereinafter shall be referred to as "the tenant" and the respondent as "the landlord".
5. The landlord brought the 2nd case before the Rent Controller on 13.07.2006 alleging that the tenant had again made default and had failed to pay or tender the increased rate of rent with effect from 01.08.2005 inspite of notice under Section 6A DRC Act issued and served on 24.06.2005 followed by notice of demand dated 01.01.2006. The tenant contested the petition.
6. After the evidence had been led, the Rent Controller passed the judgment on 02.02.2010 dismissing the case of the landlord mainly on the ground that formal evidence regarding the dispatch of the notice through postal authorities had not been adduced. On the appeal taken out by the landlord vide RCA No. 08/2010, the said judgment was set aside by this court vide judgment dated 11.07.2011 and the matter was remanded. In the wake of the said judgment, the proceedings continued before the Rent Controller and ultimately culminated in the judgment dated 07.03.2012, which is impugned through the appeal at ARCT No. 30/2012 Prem Singh Vs. Virender Singh Yadav 3 of 6 hand.
7. In his judgment, the Rent Controller has recorded satisfaction that the landlord had proved due service of the legal notices and that tenant had failed to pay all the arrears arising out of the increased rent within the period of two months after service of the notice of demand. The contention of the tenant based on payment of Rs. 1620/ on 13.11.2007 vide receipt Ex. RW 1/2 was rejected since that payment would be much beyond the statutory period within which the arrears had to be paid after service of notice of demand.
8. The tenant having felt dissatisfied has come up with the appeal at hand. His contention is that the Rent Controller has returned a wrong finding of fact about the due service of the notice of demand. He relies on Jain Plastic Industries & ors Vs. Gopi Chand [1990(1) RCR 405] to contend that the tenant should not suffer on account of bonafide mistake in compliance with the demand. He also relies on M/s Globetech Engineers Vs. Ajay Chadha & anr. [2002(2) RCR 395] to argue that the composite order under Section 15(1) DRC Act is not permissible.
9. I have considered the aforementioned contentions of the ARCT No. 30/2012 Prem Singh Vs. Virender Singh Yadav 4 of 6 appellanttenant in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. I do not find any substance in either of the said contentions.
10. The Rent Controller in the impugned judgment has taken note of the evidence about dispatch of the legal notice dated 06.01.2006 vide Ex. PW 1/7 by way of registered post vide postal receipt Ex. PW 1/9, in addition to one sent under postal certificate Ex. PW 1/10. It is conceded that the notice was sent at the correct address of the tenanted premises. The evidence led by the landlord showed that the registered article Ex. PW 1/8 was returned by the postal authority with report to the effect that on tender the delivery had been refused to be taken by the "addressee". The Rent Controller has correctly concluded on the basis of this material, with reference to Syndicate Bank Vs. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association & anr. [(2000) 5 SCC 65], that due service will have to be inferred from this material.
11.The tenant in his written statement before the Rent Controller had contended that to be on safer side he had started tendering the increased rent with effect from 01.08.2005 but the landlord had been accepting only Rs. 600/ per month and thus had ARCT No. 30/2012 Prem Singh Vs. Virender Singh Yadav 5 of 6 forfeited the said claim. This contention, obviously, has no legs to stand on as no evidence has been led to show the tender of the increased rent at any stage with effect from 01.08.2005 by the tenant prior to 13.11.2007, which deposit is the first deposit of its kind relatable to the right of the landlord to the increased rent. Since the said deposit was much beyond the statutory period within which the demand notice had to be satisfied, it cannot save the day for the tenant.
12.In these circumstances, the reliance on Jain Plastic Industries (supra) and M/s Globetech Engineers (supra) is misplaced.
13.On careful perusal, I find no substance in the appeal. It is dismissed.
14. The trial court record be returned with copy of this judgment.
15.File of the appeal be consigned to Record Room. Announced in open Court today on this 21st day of January, 2013 (R.K. GAUBA) District Judge (South) - cum -
Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Saket, New Delhi.
ARCT No. 30/2012 Prem Singh Vs. Virender Singh Yadav 6 of 6