Delhi District Court
Sh. Satya Prakash Sharma vs Sh. Ved Parkash Jain & Sons on 20 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM A.BAMBA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE :
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET: NEW DELHI
CISRCT202018
CNRDLST 010021862018
1.Sh. Satya Prakash Sharma
Son of late Pandit Chhanga Mal Sharma
R/o 32, Udai Park,
New Delhi.
2. Shri Rajinder Kumar Sharma
Son of Late Pandit Chhanga Mal Sharma
R/o U7B, Green Park,
New Delhi.
3. Shri Ashok Sharma
son of late Pandit Chhanga Mal Sharma
R/o Village Yusuf Sarai
Near Uphaar Cinema,
New Delhi. ..Appellants.
Versus
Sh. Ved Parkash Jain & Sons
Through Sh. Ved Parkash Jain
Son of late Sh. S.C Jain
R/o N13, Green Park Extension
New Delhi110016.
Page 1 of 31
CISRCT202018
Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons
Also at:
Shop No.70/4, Aurobindo Marg,
Yusuf Sarai Market, New Delhi. .... Respondent
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 38 OF DELHI RENT
CONTROL ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED
22.02.2018, PASSED BY SHRI A.K. AGRAWAL, LD.
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(SOUTH) IN EVICTION PETITIONS
NO.5948/2016 TITLED AS 'SATYA PRAKASH
SHARMA & OTHERS VS M/S VED PARKASH JAIN &
SONS'
Date of Institution : 27.03.2018
Arguments concluded on: 09.12.2020
Judgment pronounced on: 20.02.2021
JUDGMENT
1.0 Vide this appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("DRC Act" in short) the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 22.02.2018 ("impugned judgment" in short) of the Ld.ACJ/CCJ/ARC(SouthEast), Saket ("ARC" in short) whereby, the appellants' petition for eviction bearing No. 5948/16 in respect of Shop bearing no. 70/4, Aurobindo Marg, Yusuf Sarai Market, New Delhi ("Suit Premises"
in short) under Section 14(1)(a) DRC Act was dismissed.Page 2 of 31
CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons
2.0 Brief facts (as per the appeal) relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that the suit premises was let out to the respondent on oral tenancy by Smt. Chotti Devi, mother of the appellants for nonresidential purposes. Smt. Chotti Devi expired and the respondent attorned to the appellants as his landlords. The respondent failed to pay or tender the arrears of rent w.e.f 01.04.2010 along with interest @ 15% per annum within two months from the date of service of notice of demand dated 26.09.2013. The respondent sent reply dated 01.10.2013 to the said demand notice along with a cheque towards arrears of rent. However, the same was not complete and valid tender of rent because vide notice dated 26.09.2013, rent was increased by the appellants by 10% calling upon the respondent to pay rent at the rate of Rs.1,870/ per month w.e.f. 01.11.2013. But the respondent failed to pay the total rent and therefore, is liable to be evicted from the suit premises.
2.1 Appeal further mentions that although, the respondent was liable to be evicted, the Ld. ARC Vide the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2018 dismissed the eviction petition of the appellant with the observations that as in Page 3 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons response to legal demand notice dated 26.09.2013 arrears of rent had been tendered within the period of two months from the date of service of legal notice of demand of rent, there was sufficient compliance of the provisions.
3.0 The appellants have challenged the impugned judgment inter alia on the grounds that :
(i)the same is against settled principles of law and is erroneous. The Ld. ARC erred in holding that it transpired from the counter foils of rent receipts Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/7 and from the crossexamination of PW1 that the petitioners / appellants herein had never issued rent receipts to the respondent showing themselves as landlords and the same bears the name of late Smt. Chotti Devi;
(ii) the Ld. Trial court erred in holding that the petitioners / appellants herein failed to explain as to why the rent receipts issued in April 2010 were not in their name but in the Page 4 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons name of Smt. Chotti Devi, if they were attorned as landlords of the respondent after the death of Smt. Chotti Devi in August, 2000;
(iii)the Ld. Trial Court erred in holding that there has been no attornment of petitioners / appellant as landlords and that the petitioners / appellants have been merely collecting the rent from the respondent. Ld. court did not appreciate that the respondent admitted the attornment which is clear from a bare perusal of the inter pleader suit filed by the respondent herein i.e. Ex.RW1/1 and order Ex.RW1/3;
(iv) the Ld. Trial court erred in holding that there was a dispute between the legal heirs of late Smt. Chotti Devi qua the suit premises;
(v) the Ld. Trial court erred in observing Page 5 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons that it is not clear why the appellants have not collected the rent from the respondent w.e.f 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 when it was not the case of the appellant that the respondent had not paid the rent for the said period;
(vi) the Ld. Trial court erred in holding that the manner in which the rent was increased raises suspicion in view of the fact that arrears of rent for six years is alleged to have been paid in the same month within a short span;
(vii) the ld. Trial court erred in holding that the counterfoils (of rent receipts)are manipulated and dates have been arbitrarily put on them by the petitioners is strengthened from the fact that in eviction petition bearing no. 5944/16 the date has been tampered by the appellants by changing the date from 10.4.2010 to 16.4.2010 in counterfoil of rent receipt for Page 6 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons the period 1.4.2009 till 31.3.2010;
(viii) the ld. Trial court failed to appreciate that the appellants have duly proved that no rent was received by them without issuing a rent receipt; and that this fact was admitted by the respondent in their cross examination;
(ix)the ld. Trial court erred in even doubting their contention that the respondent had entered into negotiations with the appellants for increase of the rent and that too in the same month for the last four years;
(x) the ld. Trial court erred in holding that preponderance of probabilities is in favour of the respondent to conclude that the rent had never been increased to more than Rs.1000/;
In support of their contentions, the appellants have placed reliance upon the Page 7 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons judgments 'Deena Nath vs Pooran Lal', (2001) 5 SCC 705, 'Ishwar Dass Jain vs Sohan Lal', AIR 2000 SC 426 and 'Gyanender Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs Kailash Chand Jain & Ors', 105(2003) DLT 596.
(xi) the ld. Trial court failed to appreciate that admittedly, the respondent had not tendered any interest on the arrears of rent as demanded in the legal notice and thus, had not tendered / paid rent as demanded;
and was accordingly liable to eviction u/S 14(1)(a) DRC Act. In support, the appellants have relied upon judgments in 'Raghbir Singh Vs Sheela wanti & Ors.', 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 220 and 'Prof. Ram Prakash Vs DN Srivastava, 2006 (86) DRJ 335. 4.0 Ld. counsel for the respondent on the other hand sought dismissal of the appeal pleading that it is not Page 8 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons maintainable. It was submitted that the appeal u/S. 38 DRC Act lies only on the question of law. Whereas in the instant case, the appellants have simply disputed the findings of facts by the Ld. ARC and have not mentioned the question of law they raise in the present appeal.
4.1 It was further argued by the Ld. counsel for the respondent that if at all, the only question of law, which can be considered as per the contentions raised by the appellants is, whether the interest on unpaid rent forms part of the rent; and whether non payment of the same by the tenant / respondent called for eviction order. It was contended that the payment or deposit of interest has to be ordered u/S. 15(1) DRC Act by the Ld.ARC but there was no such order for payment of interest. The respondent duly complied with the order u/S. 15 (1) DRC Act. In view of the same, no order of eviction could be passed by the Ld. ARC on account of non payment of interest which was never ordered to be paid. In support, Ld. counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in 'Lok Nath & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar', CM(M) 360 / 2012 & C.M. No. 5474/2012 (for exemption) decided on 30.07.2014 and of Page 9 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Ram Murti Vs. Bhola Nath & Anr.' AIR 1984 SC 1392.
5.0 I have heard Sh. Siddarth Aggarwal, Ld. counsel for the appellants and Sh. S.N. Gupta, Ld. counsel for the respondent and have also considered the written submissions filed by both the sides. I have also perused the record carefully.
6.0 Let me at the outset refer to sub section (1) of Sec. 38 DRC Act, which reads as under:
"38. Appeal to the Tribunal (1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the Controller made under this Act (only on question of law) to the Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) consisting of one person only to be appointed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette;
6.0.1 From the plain reading of the above provision it is evident that appeal before this Court lies only on question of law. From the grounds of challenge to the impugned judgment in the present appeal (as detailed in para 3.0 above) it is apparent that the appellant has challenged the findings of facts by the Ld. ARC, except for the contention that 'rent Page 10 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons includes interest on rent'; and that its non payment amounts to non payment of rent; and hence, the appellant was entitled to order of eviction.
6.1 Be that as it may. Even if the appellants' contentions are considered, let me examine whether the same would sustain the appeal.
7.0 It is seen that the Ld. ARC after referring to the facts essential to be established for reilef u/S 14(1) (a), has dealt with them in the light of evidence led by parties. With respect to 'landlord - tenant' relationship, the Ld. ARC duly dealt with the respondent's contentions that the appellants cannot claim themselves to be the landlords as after the death of Chotti Devi, they were never attorned as landlords; and that even otherwise, there were other legal heirs, who were also staking claim in the property. It may be mentioned that the Ld. ARC after examining the evidence led by both the sides found that the respondent having paid the rent to the appellants cannot deny the existence of landlord/tenant relationship; and that the appellants being the sons / co owners of the suit property are entitled to maintain the Page 11 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons eviction petition as per law and do not require consent of other coowners. Ld. ARC thus recorded a finding in favour of the appellant, which is not contested by the appellants. Ld. ARC's observation with respect to non attornment of the appellants as landlord; and about the dispute amongst the legal heirs on the basis of evidence, is of no consequence as the same was not factored in/ has not influenced the conclusion arrived at by Ld. ARC in the appellants' favour.
8.0 With respect to the rate of rent, the Ld. ARC has found that admittedly, the rate of rent was Rs.1000/, at least till March, 2007 (as admitted in the appellants' replication). He further noted that the only question which remained to be examined was, whether the rent was increased from Rs.1000/ to Rs.1500/ per month and then to Rs.1700/ per month during the period April, 2007 till April, 2009. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence / counter foils of rent receipts Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/7, filed by the appellants in support of their contention of increase in rent, the Ld. ARC observed that :
22. As regard arrears of rent is concerned, both the period from which the rent amount was due as well as the rate of rent are in dispute. Perusal of record shows that it is an admitted fact that Page 12 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons tenancy was oral. In order to prove the rate of rent, reliance has been placed by petitioners on counterfoils of rent receipts Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/5 (actually Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/7) contending that the last paid rent was Rs.1,700/ per month. On the other hand, respondent contends that the last rate of rent was only Rs.1,000/ and it was never increased to Rs.1,700/ per month.
23. .....it is not in dispute that rate of rent was Rs. 1,000/, at least till March 2007 (as stated in replication)even though respondent deny subsequent increase in rent to Rs.1,700/ and contend that even the last paid rent till March 2011 was Rs.
1,000/only. Hence, the question before the court is whether the rent was increased from Rs. 1,000/ to Rs.1,500/ and then to Rs. 1,700/ between the period of April 2007 till April 2009, or not.
24. In order to prove the same, reliance has been placed by petitioners on the four rent receipts Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/7. A perusal of the said counterfoils of rent receipts shows that same are for the period between 01.04.2003 till 31.03.2010. The counterfoil of rent receipt Ex. PW1/2 dated 05.04.2010, Ex.PW1/3 dated 07.04.2010 and Ex.PW1/4 dated 08.04.2010 are for the period 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2006 all for an amount of Rs.12,000/ each with the rent being @ Rs. 1000/ per month. The counterfoil of rent receipt Ex.PW1/5 is dated 12.04.2010 and is for period between 01.04.2007 till 31.03.2008 for an amount of Rs. 18,000/ with rent @ Rs.1,500/ per month( Rent receipt of the period 01.04.2006 till 31.03.2007 is not Page 13 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons produced). Similarly, the counterfoil of rent receipt Ex. PW1/6 dated 14.04.2010 is for the period 01.04.2008 till 31.03.2009 for an amount of Rs. 18,000/ with rent @ Rs.1500/ per month. The last rent receipt is Ex. PW1/7 dated 10.04.2010 for the period 01.04.2009 till 31.03.2010 for an amount of Rs.20,400/ with the rent being Rs. 1,700/ per month. All the rent receipts allegedly bear the signatures of brother of respondent though denied by the respondent.
25. It can be seen that these rent receipts have been issued in the same month and that too within 10 days i.e. from 05.04.2010 till 14.04.2010. So it appears that the rent for six years, has been paid by respondent in the same month in just more than a week's period. In the evidence affidavit of PW1 which is Ex. PW1/A, it is stated that the rent had been paid between the aforesaid ten days for six years and immediately rent receipts were issued. However if one sees the eviction petition or even the replication, there is (no) such averment/allegation that the respondent was irregular in making payment of rent or that the rent for six years had been paid by respondent, in the same month itself. It is also surprising as to why the petitioners did not collect the rent for the period of 01.04.2006 till 31.03.2007, from respondent and if they did collect the rent, why no rent receipt was issued by them. The evidence Affidavit Ex. PW1/A is also suspiciously silent qua rent of this year.
26. As per the petitioners, they had issued rent receipts as and when the rent was paid by respondent. At the same time, Page 14 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons petitioners also state that the rent had been increased in view of mutual negotiations from Rs.1,000/ to Rs.1,500/ w.e.f. 01.04.2007 and thereafter, increased to Rs. 1,700/ w.e.f. 01.04.2009. It is obvious that the tenancy is covered under Delhi Rent Control Act, hence any increase in rent has to be as per the provisions of the Act and not against it. DRC Act does not give any authority to landlords to increase the rent arbitrarily.
.....
29. The increase in rent in the present case is much more than the permissible limit of 10 % as provided under the Act. It is also admitted case that no notice towards increase of rent has ever been served by the petitioners upon the respondent. Of course there is no restraint on the parties to mutually agree to increase the rent even much beyond the permissible limit of 10% but this mutual agreement has to be proved by landlord by leading satisfactory evidence. If all the averments of petitioners are taken into consideration, it appears that all these negotiations to increase the rent took place only in April 2010 and the alleged increase in rent was effected from a back date. This cannot be termed as a periodic increase in rent. In fact, the manner in which the increase in rent is contended, it appears to be suspicious in view of the fact that arrears of rent for six years is alleged to have been made in the same month within a short span.
30. Reliance has again been placed on counterfoils of rent receipts Ex.PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/7 as proof of increase in rent. At the outset, none of these counterfoils bear the signatures of Page 15 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons respondent herein, but allegedly that of his brother Sh. Sumat Prakash, which fact is even otherwise denied by respondent. Moreover, the said counterfoils of rent receipts are also full of suspicion. In his examination, PW1 states that rent receipts were being issued from binded book however no such binded book of rent receipt has been produced. In fact the counterfoils of rent receipts do not even bear any receipt number. If there had been receipt number, it would have lend credibility to the same.
31. Furthermore, there is a grave suspicion on counterfoil Ex. PW1/6 dated 14.04.2010 for the period of 01.04.2008 till 31.03.2009 and counterfoil Ex.PW1/7 dated 10.04.2010 for the period of 01.04.2009 till 31.03.2020. How is possible that a counterfoil of a later period i.e. 01.04.2009 till 31.03.2010 bears a prior date of 10.04.2010 then the counterfoil of prior period i.e. 01.04.2008 till 31.03.2009 which bears a later date of 01.04.2010. This obviously gives an impression that the rent receipt have not been issued at the time of payment of rent but later on and probably in one sitting and that too in the absence of respondent.
32. The contention of counterfoils being manipulated and dates put on them arbitrarily by petitioners, also gets strengthened from the fact that a connected eviction petition no.5944/16 had been decided by this court today itself, wherein a visible tampering had been done by the petitioners by changing the date of from 10.04.2010 to 16.04.2010, in counterfoil of rent receipt for the period 01.04.2009 till Page 16 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons 31.03.2010, to give an impression that it was issued on a later date. It has also to be kept in mind that the petitioners cannot take the defence that the respondent paid the rent for period 01.04.2009 till 31.03.2010 before making payment of rent for the period of 01.04.2008 till 31.03.2009 for the reason that rent receipt of the period of 01.04.2009 till 31.03.2010 had to be necessarily of a later date, since the rate of rent had allegedly increased w.e.f 01.04.2009, in view of the alleged negotiations between parties. Moreover these counterfoils appear to be intentionally not filed alongwith the eviction petition but only later on alongwith replication, so that the respondent does not get an opportunity to counter the same in his written statement. It would be travesty of justice if such kind of manipulated documents are relied by the court while appreciation of rent. Hence, such counterfoils of rent receipts have to be discarded as proof of increase of rent. Except above counterfoils of rent receipts, there is no other proof to proof of increase in rent.
33. Even otherwise, the contention of petitioners that the rent was increased by way of mutual negotiations, is also a cooked up story. My above discussions in para 19& 20 clearly reveal that the respondent had never attorned to the petitioners as their landlords. The rent receipts were never issued by the petitioners in their name but in the name of their deceased mother. There was admitted dispute among the legal heirs of Late Chotti Devi qua the suit property. The respondent had even filed an interpleader suit against the respondents (petitioners) herein, to decide as to who was the actual landlord Page 17 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons entitled to receive the rent. In this backdrop, it is just not possible to believe the contention that the respondent had entered into any negotiations with the petitioners to increase the rent and that too in the same month, for last four years. Accordingly, I am of the view that the rent has never been increased more than Rs. 1000/.
34. As far as period since when the rent amount was due is concerned, as per petitioners, the rent amount stands due w.e.f. 01.04.2010. On the other hand, as per respondent, the amount was due w.e.f. 01.04.2011. As can be noticed, both the parties are merely relying upon oral testimony in order to prove the period since when the rent amount was due. During cross examination, RW1, specifically stated that rent amount was being paid earlier but the rent receipts were issued later on. The factum of rent receipts of four years being issued in the same month of April 2010 supports the view that petitioners may have been issuing the rent receipts later on and not at the time of receiving the rent amount. Moreover considering the above conduct of petitioners, in trying to mislead the court by producing manipulated counterfoils of rent receipt, the court is bound to place reliance on the oral testimony of the respondent rather than that of petitioners. Accordingly it is held that the rent was due w.e.f. April 2011 onwards and not April 2010..."
8.1 From the above it is evident that the Ld. ARC has duly examined the evidence led by the parties and has assigned the reasons for arriving at the above findings with Page 18 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons respect to the rate of rent. The appellants have simply contended that the Ld. ARC has erred in arriving at such findings but have failed to point out any illegality in the findings of the Ld. ARC. Although Section 38(1) DRC Act does not permit going into the findings of facts / re appreciation of evidence, even if for a while the evidence led by parties is looked into, the findings arrived at by Ld. ARC for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, can not be faulted. Therefore, the same do not call for any intervention.
8.2 Much was argued about by Ld. counsel for the appellants about the Ld. ARC's finding with respect to the period since when the rent was due. As is seen, in para no.34 of the impugned judgment (reproduced above), the Ld. ARC, has noted that as per the appellants herein, the rent was due w.e.f. 01.04.2010, whereas, as per the respondent, the rent was due w.e.f. 01.04.2011; and that both the sides supported their version with their own oral evidence. Ld. ARC taking into account the conduct of the appellants herein by producing manipulated counter foils of rent receipts, gave weightage to the oral testimony of the respondent as against Page 19 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons that of the appellants herein and held "that the rent was due w.e.f. April 2011 onwards and not w.e.f. April 2010". The appellant has failed to demonstrate any reason for interference with the said finding of facts by the Ld. ARC.
8.3 As far as the case law relied upon by the appellants is concerned, it may be mentioned that in Deena Nath's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that if the trial court has not applied the statutory provision to the evidence on record in its proper perspective, such an erroneous finding illegally arrived at would vitiate the judgment, which is not the situation in the instant case as discussed above. Ishwar Dass's case (supra) involved appeal against judgment in a civil suit for redemption of the usufructuary mortgage and for possession and not under DRC Act. Be that as it may. The law laid down therein that the appellate court can interfere where relevant evidence is not considered while arriving at a finding of fact, cannot be disputed. But as already noted above, same is not the situation in the present case. Thus, even this judgment is of no assistance to the appellants. Same is the case as far as the judgment in Gaynender Kumar Verma's case is concerned.
Page 20 of 31CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons Thus, the above judgments relied upon by the appellants are of no assistance to them.
9.0 Regarding the payment / tender of arrears of rent pursuant to issuance of legal notice of demand, as observed by Ld. ARC, admittedly, in response to legal notice Ex.PW1/8 issued by the appellants demanding arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.04.2010 @ Rs.1700/ per month, the respondent alongwith his reply Ex.PW1/12, sent a cheque of Rs.30,000/ towards arrears of rent calculated @ Rs.1000/ per month w.e.f. 01.04.2011 till 30.09.2013 i.e. for 30 months. The factum of tender of Rs.30,000/ as arrears of rent has been admitted in the eviction petition. Considering the same, the Ld. ARC concluded that there was sufficient compliance of legal notice dated 26.09.2013, Ex.PW1/8 as arrears of rent was tendered within a period of two months from the date of service of legal notice of demand of rent and accordingly, there was due compliance of the provisions.
9.1 Though there is no dispute regarding payment / tender of rent by the respondent within 2 months of legal notice dated 26.09.2013. Ld. counsel for the appellants argued that the Ld. ARC failed to appreciate that the Page 21 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons respondent admittedly did not pay / tender any interest on the arrears of rent as demanded in the legal notice, Ex.PW1/8, which rendered the tender as improper tender / payment of rent u/S. 14(1)(a) of DRC Act. Same entitled the appellants to an order of eviction. In support, the appellants placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in Raghbir Singh's case (supra) and Prof. Ram Prakash's case (supra).
9.2 In this respect, Ld. counsel for the respondent argued that after filing of this petition, the respondent had filed an application u/S. 15(4) of DRC Act praying that he be allowed to deposit the rent in court. While disposing of that application, the Ld. ARC disallowed the respondent's prayer u/S. 15(4) of DRC Act but passed an order u/S. 15(1) of DRC Act directing the respondent to pay / tender the rent, @ Rs.1000/ per month for the period Jan.2014 till July 2014 and subsequently every month, to the appellants herein. But the Ld. ARC did not direct the respondent to pay any interest on arrears of rent. In view of the same, the respondent was not called upon or required to make any payment towards any interest on the arrears. Ld. counsel further argued that Page 22 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons having complied with the order u/S. 15(1) DRC Act for payment / tender of rent, the respondent was entitled to benefit of Section 14(2) DRC Act. Ld. ARC rightly granted the same and dismissed the eviction petition.
9.3 It is seen that with respect to tender /payment of rent, Ld. ARC concluded that payment / tender of Rs.30,000/ towards rent was sufficient compliance. Relevant portion of impugned judgment reads as under:
"..Since the respondent has admittedly tendered Rs.30,000/ as arrears of rent for 30 months, which fact is admitted even in the eviction petition, in my considered opinion, there is sufficient compliance of legal notice Ex.PW1/8 as arrears of rent has been tendered within the period of 2 months from the date of service of legal notice of demand of rent."
9.3.1 Let me now refer to the case law relied upon by the appellants. In Prof. Ram Prakash's case (supra) and Raghbir Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that 'rent' includes interest on arrears / delayed payment of rent. Therefore, tender by the tenant without interest would not be a tender in accordance with law. Thus, the Ld. Page 23 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons ARC erred in finding that the tender of arrears of rent of Rs.30,000/ (without interest) was sufficient compliance.
9.4 Ld. counsel for the respondent argued that even if that be so, still no eviction order could be passed, the respondent having complied with the order u/S. 15(1) DRC Act for payment / tender of rent; and the respondent was entitled to benefit of Section 14(2) DRC Act. Thus, the Ld. ARC rightly dismissed the eviction petition. The respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Murti's case (supra) and that of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Lok Nath's case (supra).
9.5 It may be mentioned that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Murti's case (supra) while dealing with the objective of the DRC Act and the protection provided to the tenant under the Act from eviction, in case the tenant complies with the directions, u/S. 15(1) of Ld. ARC, held as under:
"....
6. In order to deal with the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out the relevant statutory provisions.
15 (6). If a tenant makes payment or deposit as required by Page 24 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons Subsection (1) or Subsection (3), no order shall be made for the recovery of possession on the ground of default in the payment of rent by the tenant, but the Controller may allow such costs as he may deem fit to the landlord.
.........
7. From a conspectus of these provisions, it would be seen that ..... The predominant object and purpose of the legislation, as a matter of social control, is to prevent eviction of tenants and to provide for control of rents etc. One must therefore give a meaningful interpretation to the various subsections of Sections 14 and 15 in furtherance of the purpose and object of the legislation.
8. The right of the landlord to claim eviction of the tenant on the ground that he has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him under Section 14(1)(a) is made subject to the provisions of Section 14(2). The opening words of Section 14(2) 'No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in Clause (a) of the proviso to Subsection (1) clearly subordinate the landlord's claim for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent to the statutory protection given to the tenant under Section 14(2) against eviction on that ground on condition that he makes payment or deposit as required under Section 15. When a tenant can get the benefit of the protection under Section 14(2) is provided for in Section 15(1). Section 15(1) of the Act is in two parts. The first part requires the tenant to pay or deposit within one month of the order of the Rent Controller passed under Section 15(1) directing him to pay the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which such payment or deposit Page 25 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons is to be made. The second part is meant to secure payment of future rent by a defaulting tenant and casts a duty on such tenant to continue to pay or deposit, month by month, by the 15th day of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. It is obvious that a tenant who seeks protection against eviction on the ground mentioned in Section 14(1)
(a) must comply with the requirements of Section 15(1).
9.5.1 In view of the above once the tenant complies with order under Section 15(1) DRC Act, he is entitled to benefit u/S. 14(2) DRC Act.
9.6 Let me now refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Lok Nath's case (supra), where similar situation as in the present appeal was dealt with. The Hon'ble court observed as under:
"1. The challenge by means of this petition against the judgment / order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 09.11.2009. The judgment / order dated 09.11.2009 is a consequential order pursuant to the main judgment deciding the petition filed by the petitioners/landlords under Section 14(1)(a) (nonpayment of rent) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on 01.08.2008.
2. To put in seriatim and chronologically, it is to be noted that the petitioners herein /landlords filed the eviction petition on the ground of non payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This petition was allowed in favour of the landlords by holding that the respondent/tenant had committed a default in payment of rent for the period from 01.10.1996 to 03.11.1996 by not paying, tendering or depositing the rent inspite of service of the legal notice Ex.AW1/10 dated 12.12.1996. In law, even if a default is proved in a petition Page 26 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, an eviction order does not follow because a tenant is entitled to make up the default of rent by depositing rent pursuant to an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. If it is found that the tenant has complied with the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act, benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act is given and eviction order is not passed.....
4. At this stage, the interim order dated 2.12.1999 which was passed by the Additional Rent Controller under Section 15(1) of the Act during the hearing of the main petition under Section 14(1)(a) of Act is required to be examined. The relevant/operative part of this order reads as under: "3. ...........Accordingly without prejudice to the respective rights of the parties the respondent is hereby directed to pay to the petitioner or deposit in the court upto date arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st October, 1996 at the rate of Rs.375/ p.m within a period of 30 days from today and to continue to pay to the petitioner or deposit in the court monthly rent for each month by 15th of each succeeding month till further orders.....
.......
6. The main eviction petition was disposed of vide the judgment dated 01.8.2008, and which judgment has become final because this judgment has not been challenged by any of the parties.
......
8.... Therefore, neither at the stage of passing of the order under Section 15(1) on 02.12.1999 nor at the time of final judgment dated 01.8.2008, the petitioners/landlords did seek a direction to be passed under Section 15(1) of the Act or in the final judgment dated 01.8.2008 that the respondent/tenant should now be asked to deposit the interest on the defaulted rent.Page 27 of 31
CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons
9. .... challenge which is raised is that the respondent/tenant cannot take benefit of Section 14(2) because the respondent/tenant has not deposited the interest on the defaulted rent as asked for in the legal notice Ex. AW1/10.
....
11. A collation of the facts as stated above shows that undoubtedly there is a default in payment of interest by the respondent/tenant as demanded in the legal notice Ex. AW1/10, however, simultaneously it is also clear that the order under Section 15(1) which is required to be complied with for getting the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act also did not order for payment of interest on the delayed payment of rent and even the petitioners/landlords never did apply for variation of the order dated 02.12.1999 under Section 15(1) or for variation of the final judgment dated 01.8.2008, in which the interim order dated 02.12.1999 merged that the interest component be directed to be paid/deposited by the respondent. Really, therefore, the present case is to be considered on the principle that an act of the court should not harm the litigant i.e since under Section 14(2) an eviction order should not be passed against the tenant with respect to default in payment of arrears of rent if the tenant complied with the order passed under Section 15(1), then, a tenant cannot be allowed to be caused prejudice because of an act of the court by passing the order of eviction although the order passed under Section 15(1) did not direct payment of interest, and therefore, the respondent/tenant did not pay/deposit interest component.
.........
14. In view of the above, I hold that no eviction order can be passed in favour of the petitioners/landlords and against the respondent/tenant on account of the respondent/tenant allegedly not having complied with the order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in as much as the fact of the matter is that the interest amount was not paid on the arrears of rent, because in Page 28 of 31 CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons fact, there was no such order under Section 15(1) of the Act for payment of interest by the court, and the petitioners/landlords also never asked for variation of the order under Section 15(1) of the Act to direct the respondent/tenant to pay interest, read with the principle that an act of the court should not harm any litigant.'.....
9.6.1 Thus, in view of the above, it is a settled position of law that non payment of interest on arrears of rent as demanded in legal notice (when there was no such order u/S. 15(1) of the Act) cannot deprive the tenant of the benefit u/S. 14(2) of the Act once the tenant has complied with the order u/S. 15(1) DRC Act.
10.0 In the instant case, it is seen that vide order dated 19.08.2015, the Ld. ARC while disposing of the respondent's application u/S. 15(4) DRC Act directed as under:
"Since the applicant / respondent has himself stated the rent qua the tenanted property to be Rs.1,000/ per month and further stated that rent upto December 2013 stood deposited by him U/s 27 DRC Act, therefore, in my view the interest of justice would be met if the applicant / respondent is directed to pay/tender the rent @Rs.1,000/ per month for the period from January' 2014 till July' 2014 to the petitioners/nonapplicants and thereafter continue paying or deposit rent at the aforesaid rate by 15 th day of each succeeding month during the pendency of the present eviction petition."Page 29 of 31
CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons 10.1 From the above, it is evident that no order for payment of interest was made by the Ld.ARC.
10.2 Thus the fact situation in the present case and the only question of law as raised by the appellants in the present appeal, is squarely covered by the judgment in Lok Nath's case (supra). No doubt, non payment of interest on the arrears of rent as demanded in legal notice Ex.PW1/8 was not a proper tender. But once the respondent complied with the order of the Ld. ARC dated 19.08.2015 u/S. 15(1) DRC Act (which did not direct payment of interest on arrears) he is entitled to the statutory protection / benefit u/S. 14(2) of DRC Act. Therefore, his eviction u/S. 14(1)(a) of DRC Act as prayed by the appellants, cannot be directed.
11.0 In view of the above facts and circumstances and the findings recorded herein above, the present appeal cannot succeed. Hence dismissed.
12.0 The trial court record be sent back along with a copy of this judgment.
Page 30 of 31CISRCT202018 Satya Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs Ved Parkash Jain & Sons The appeal file be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in open Court
today i.e.20.02.2021 (POONAM A. BAMBA)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
(South), Saket/New Delhi.
Digitally signed
by POONAM A
POONAM BAMBA
A BAMBA Date: 2021.02.20
13:11:30 +0530
Page 31 of 31
CISRCT202018