Delhi District Court
Smt. Kamlesh Chopra vs Smt. Gurmeet Kaur on 18 January, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI O.P. GUPTA,
DJ&ASJ-In-Charge(West)/ARCT,DELHI
***
Unique ID NO. 02401C0577432010
RCT No. 79/2010
Smt. Kamlesh Chopra
Wife of Shri Satish Chopra
2/149, Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi. ....Appellant
Versus
Smt. Gurmeet Kaur
Wife of Sh. Harinder Singh
R/o 2/146, (3rd Floor) Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi - 110027. ...Respondent
Date of Institution : 18.12.2010
Arguments heard on : 02.01.2012
Date of Order : 18.01.2012
ORDER
1. The present appeal is directed against order dated 12.11.2010 passed by Ld. ARC vide which petition u/s 14(1) (a) DRC Act filed by the appellant was decided, order u/s 15(1) DRC was passed and fresh notice was directed to be served upon respondent for complying with said order u/s 15(1) DRC Act.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellenat filed RCT No. 79/10 1 of 6 2 an eviction petition on the avernments that respondent was in arrears of rent from June 2004. The rent was Rs. 2000/- per month exclusive of electricity and water charges.
3. In written statement the respondent took the plea that eviction petition was counter blast to civil suit No. 352/07 filed by her for injunction restraining the appellant from forcibly dispossessing her without due process of law. Rent of Rs. 2000/- per month was inclusive of electricity and water charges. She has paid rent upto 31.05.2007. Thereafter she paid Rs. 12,000/- to electricity authorities for restoration of electricity. She was entitled to adjust the said amount from rent from 1.6.2007 to 30.11.2007. She denied service of notice.
4. The respondent stopped appearing before the Ld. Trial Court and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.09.2009. In his ex-parte evidence the appellant filed his affidavit Ex. P-1. She referred to the site plan as Ex. PW1/1, copy of notice as Ex. PW1/2, AD as Ex. PW1/3, UPC as Ex. PW1/4, postal receipt as Ex. PW1/4A, courier RCT No. 79/10 2 of 6 3 receipts as Ex. PW1/4B, copy of statements in petition u/s 45 DRC Act in the court of Mrs Navita Kumar, ARC as Ex. PW1/5 to 7.
5. After going through the material on record and hearing the arguments the Ld. ARC found that the service of notice stood proved. Order u/s 15(1) DRC Act was passed directing the respondent to deposit rent w.e.f. February 2007 to July 2007 @ Rs. 2000/- per month from August 2007 till date @ Rs. 2200/- per month within one month and to continue to pay or deposit rent at the same time month by month by 15th day of each succeeding month. At the same time Ld. ARC observed that respondent would be entitled to protection u/s 14(2) DRC Act only if she complied with order u/s 15(1) DRC Act. Further the appellant was directed to take necessary steps for ensuring service of the order upon the respondent for necessary compliance.
6. In appeal the grievance of the appellant is that once the respondent has been served in Trial Court, had put in appearance, had filed written statement, it was not RCT No. 79/10 3 of 6 4 necessary to effect fresh service of order u/s 15(1) DRC Act.
7. During arguments the counsel for the appellant submitted that passing of composite order u/s 15(1) and 14(2) DRC Act is against law as laid down by division bench of our own Hon'ble High Court in M/s Globetec Engineers Vs Ajay Chadha & Another 2002 VI AD (Delhi)
672.
8. The respondent was served in appeal for 14.12.2011, put in appearance on the said date as well as on 2.1.2012. She stated that she was never served in the Trial Court. She was confronted with the written statement filed on her behalf and she replied that signature appeared like her signature but were not her signature.
9. The record of the Ld. Trial Court shows that respondent was served for 27.05.2008. The served copy of summon is available on file and is placed at page 173. In this back ground coupled with half hearted admission of the respondent that signature on the written statement look like her signature, it cannot be believed that the respondent RCT No. 79/10 4 of 6 5 was not served. Moreover the terror of written statement shows she has taken all the possible defence, she has referred to the previous litigation. None else but the respondent could knew the same and could plead the same.
10. Having held that the respondent was served and filed written statement, I find force in the plea of the appellant that once the respondent is served and stops appearing after filing written statement, fresh service of order u/s 15(1) DRC Act was not necessary. Hence the impugned order to that extent needs modification.
11. During arguments it revealed that respondent paid Rs. 48,000/- on 6.6.2009 in the court of Mrs Navita Kumari, ARC in petition u/s 45 DRC Act. The respondent gave two pay orders for Rs. 30,000/- each in this court on 14.12.2011. The same covers rent till November 2011. The dispute remained regarding period from February 2007 to May 2007 and regarding adjustment of Rs. 12,000/- paid to the electricity authorities. No adjustment is permissible u/s 15(1) DRC Act even if the rent was inclusive of RCT No. 79/10 5 of 6 6 electricity charges, the respondent has remedy to recover the said amount from the appellant by way of filing the civil suit. For this reliance may be placed on Yashpal Dhawan Versus Mahinder Singh 167 (2010) DLT 366 on analogical grounds where adjustment for repairs was not allowed. The counsel for the appellant fairly agreed not to press claim of rent from February 2007 to May 2007 and enhancement by 10% from August 2007.
12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is accepted in part. Order u/s 15(1) DRC Act is modified to the effect that respondent is directed to pay rent @ Rs. 2000/- per month from June 2007. Since the respodent has already made payment of the said amount by now, benefit u/s 14(2) DRC Act is given to her. Trial Court Record be sent back along with the copy of the said order. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on
this 18th January, 2012. (O.P. GUPTA)
DJ&ASJ-In-Charge(West)/ARCT
Delhi
RCT No. 79/10 6 of 6