Delhi District Court
Ashok Kumar Mishra vs Gurjeet Singh on 2 November, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI O.P. GUPTA,
DJ&ASJ-In-Charge(West)/ARCT,DELHI
***
Unique ID NO. 02401C0132192012
RCT No. 13/2012
Ashok Kumar Mishra
S/o Sh. J. N. Mishra
R/o A-34, ( 1st Floor )
Ghanta Ghar, Hari Nagar,
New Delhi 110064. ..........Appellant
VERSUS
Gurjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Charan Singh
R/o A-34, Ghanta Ghar,
Hari Nagar,
New Delhi 110064 ...... Respondent
Date of institution : 23.03.2012
Arguments heard on : 20.10.2012
Date of order : 02.11.2012
ORDER
1. The appeal assails order dated 20.2.2012 passed by Ld. ARC declining benefit u/s 14 (2) DRC Act.
2. It is disgusting to note that a simple eviction petition on the ground of non payment of rent filed in May 2000 remained pending in the court of first instance till February RCT no. 13/12 1 of 7 2 2012 when the impugned order was passed. What is more surprising is that the main eviction petition took less than four years as it was decided on 22.1.2004. But the question of grant of benefit u/s 14(2) DRC Act took more than double of the said period till 20.2.2012. Sight cannot be lost of the fact that while deciding impugned petition on 22.1.2004, order u/s 15 (1) was modified and it was ordered that if appellant complied with said modified order, he would be entitled to benefit u/s 14(2) DRC Act. Otherwise eviction order would be liable to be passed against him.
3. The said order left nothing to be decided u/s 14(2) DRC Act. It is not clear as to why a miscellaneous file was directed to be opened. If we go on counting telly, the composite order u/s 15(1) DRC Act and section 14(2) DRC Act in itself was illegal. In this regard reliance can be placed on Chinnamarkathian Vs Ayyavo AIR 1982 SC 137, Ram Murti Vs Bhola Nath & Anr. AIR 1984 SC 1392, H.P. Vaid Vs S.K.R. Bhandari 35 (1988) DLT 7, M/s Globetech Engineer Vs Ajay Chadha & Anr. 2002 (6) AD RCT no. 13/12 2 of 7 3 Delhi 672 DB. What to say more in B.R. Mehta Vs Smt. Atma Devi 37 (1989) DLT 416 law went to the extent that composite order can be challenged even in execution. That being so the same is always open to be challenged in present appeal which is continuation of the main petition.
4. Yet another glaring illegality is that main petition came to an end on 22.1.2004 and the eviction order has been passed due to alleged default in payment of rent for October and December 2007, April and October 2008. That period is subsequent to the decision of the main petition. Order u/s 15 (1) DRC Act came to an end with the decision of the main petition and there remained no scope for default in complying with the said order.
5. The main order recites not at one place but at two places that rent has been paid late for February 2001, October and December 2007, April and October 2008 and on many other occasions. At page 2 of the order month of July 2008 has also been mentioned. The order is quite sketchy. It does not deal with as to when the rent for each of the said months was deposited and how much RCT no. 13/12 3 of 7 4 delay there was.
6. Order u/s 15 (1) DRC Act was passed on 25.1.2001 for the admitted period i.e. w.e.f. 1.3.2000. The same was modified at the time of final order on 22.1.2004 so as to make it effective w.e.f. 1.4.1999.
7. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The counsel for the appellant pointed out that rent for February 2001 was deposited on 27.2.2001 against challan No. 2002, rent for July 2001 was deposited on 12.7.2001 against challan No. 595. Rent for October 2007 was deposited on 12.11.2007, rent for December 2007 was deposited on 10.1.2008 against challan No. 2192. Rent for April 2008 was deposited on 5.5.2008 against challan No. 097. Rent for October 2008 was deposited on 3.11.2008 against challan No. 1756. Thus all the deposits were within time.
8. The counsel for the respondent filed a chart showing that period from 1.4.1999 to January 2004 comes to 58 months. Rent for said period @ Rs. 2530/- per month comes to Rs. 1,46,750/- whereas the amount deposited by RCT no. 13/12 4 of 7 5 the tenant is 1,35,470/-. The same is short by Rs. 11,280/-. Default cannot be found in a manner like this mess. It has to be pointed out for a particular month. Rent for January 2004 could not be counted as the case was decided on 29.1.2004 when rent for January 2004 had not yet become due. The chart starts from 27,577/- which is not rent for any complete number of months @ Rs. 2530/- per month. Then it shows Rs. 11,500/- for five months @ Rs. 2300/- per month for the period 1999-2000, which five months is not clear. The order was @ Rs. 2530/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.1999. At Sr. No. 2 Rs. 32,660/- has been shown for the year 2001. The same again does not represent any complete number of months. A sum of Rs. 2300/- has been deducted therefrom leaving a balance of Rs. 30,360/-. At Sr. No. 3 Rs. 30,360/- has been shown for the year 2002. At Sr. No. 4 Rs. 32,890/- has been shown for the year 2003. The same again does not represent any complete number of months. It is not clear as to how rent for 2003 became more than rent for 2001 and 2002.
RCT no. 13/12 5 of 7 6
9. In written summary of arguments filed by the respondent/landlord in this court he has shown Rs. 30,360/- for 12 months @ Rs. 2530/- per month and then added Rs. 2970/- towards difference for nine months @ Rs. 230/- per month total Rs. 32430/-.( sic it should have been 32,330/- ) The appellant deposited Rs. 27,577/- which was short by Rs. 4853/-. If difference of Rs. 3970/- is excluded, still the amount is short by Rs. 2783/-.
10. I fail to understand the above calculation. No order u/s 15(1) DRC Act was passed @ Rs. 2300/- per month. So there is no occasion for adding difference @ Rs. 230/- per month for 9 months.
11. In last para the landlord has mentioned that the rent from 01.04.1999 to March 2000 should have been Rs. 27,600/- but the appellant deposited Rs. 27,577/- leaving a balance of Rs. 23/-. The same is negligible and is liable to be condoned. At this juncture it is useful to mention that though final order directs deposit of rent @ Rs. 2530/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.1999 but since the notice was dated 29.1.2000, enhancement by 10% could have been RCT no. 13/12 6 of 7 7 effective from 1.3.2000 as directed in the initial order u/s 15 (1) DRC Act passed on 25.1.2001.
12. The respondent has also made a grievance that after depositing Rs. 27,577/- on 19.2.2000, the appellant failed to deposit rent for eight months, on 3.3.2005 against challan No. 434 he deposited Rs. 22,264/-. This is for February 2004 to June 2004 and December 2004 to February 2005. This is all subsequent to final disposal of the petition and is irrelevant.
13. To sum up I find that impugned order is not sustainable. The appeal is accepted and impugned order is set-aside. Benefit u/s 14 (2) DRC Act is granted to the appellant. Trial Court record be sent back along with the copy of this order. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court
on 2nd November, 2012. (O.P. GUPTA)
DJ&ASJ-In-Charge(West)/ARCT
Delhi
RCT no. 13/12 7 of 7