Delhi District Court
Sh. Shyam Singh vs Sh. Raj Kumar Khanna on 11 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR:
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
Case No. E69/13 (Old), 78833/16 (New)
In the matter of:
Sh. Shyam Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Miri Lal,
430, Kucha Brij Nath, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi110006.
....Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Raj Kumar Khanna,
S/o Late Sh. Dharam Chand Khanna,
430 Kucha Brij Nath, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi110006.
Also at:
R/o 3523/5, Chotani Manzil,
Mori Gate, Delhi110006. .....Respondent
Date of Institution : 31.07.2007 Date of order when reserved : 11.04.2018 Date of order when announced : 11.04.2018 J U D G M E N T :
1. Vide this judgment, the undersigned shall decide the petition filed under Section 14 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act).
E78833/16 Page 1/222. Before proceeding further, it may be noted at the threshold that this is a case of second default and the respondent having once availed the benefit U/s 14 (2) of DRC Act is not entitled to such benefit in case if it is held to be a second default.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is owner of the property bearing no. 430, Kucha Brij Nath, Chandni Chowk, Delhi110006 and respondent is an old tenant in respect of one Kothri and Dalan on the ground floor thereof. The tenancy commences on the first day of each English Calender month and ends on the expiry of last day of same month.
4. That the respondent is a habitual defaulter in the payment of rent to the petitioner and has neither paid, nor tendered arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.10.2004 (second default) @ Rs. 180/ per month inspite of repeated requests and demands of petitioner. The respondent had paid the rent upto 30.09.2004 at the aforesaid rate of rent against rent receipts, but thereafter, he has failed to pay any rent to the petitioner. The petitioner got served a legal demand notice dated 20.04.2007 upon the respondent through registered A.D./ UPC Post demanding the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.10.2004 till date (date of notice) and enhancement of rent by 10% per annum, hence the respondent was called to pay the enhanced rent @ Rs. 198/ per month from 01.06.2007, he also demanded interest on arrears of rent, the notice E78833/16 Page 2/22 was served through UPC as the same was never received back, but the respondent failed to comply with the notice. It is prayed that the respondent is liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises on the ground of nonpayment of rent.
5. That earlier an eviction petition U/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act was filed by petitioner against the present respondent which was allowed vide judgment dated 10.08.1998 since it was his first default and he complied with the orders passed U/s 15 (1) of DRC Act, hence vide order dated 10.09.1998 benefit U/s 14 (2) of DRC Act was granted to respondent on filing of an affidavit by respondent for compliance of benefit of Section 14 (2) of DRC Act and after recording of statement of petitioner. It is stated that the premises is lying locked since 2001. The respondent is also defaulter in payment of electricity charges to the BSES YPL and the electricity meter stood removed from the premises by the said authority vide notice dated 01.02.2007.
6. Notice of the petition served upon the respondent and he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 13.12.2007. Thereafter, an application Under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC as well as Under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC r/w Section 5 of Limitation Act were filed on behalf of respondent which were allowed vide order dated 15.05.2008 and ex parte proceedings were setaside. Thereafter, written statement has E78833/16 Page 3/22 been filed on behalf of the respondent on which replication also filed on behalf of the petitioner.
7. In his written statement it has been contented by the respondent that the respondent is living for the last several years at H.No. 1011, Sector44B, Chandigarh. The petitioner is aware about the said address of the respondent wherefrom the respondent is continuously sending money orders for the rent of the tenanted premises to the petitioner. The petitioner has not demanded rent of the premises in question from the respondent from October, 2004 onwards, however the respondent number of times offered rent personally in cash to the petitioner initially for the month of October and November, 2004 which the petitioner avoided on one pretext, or the other. Thereafter, the respondent sent the rent for the period October to December, 2004 to the petitioner vide money order at the rate of rent of Rs. 180/ per month, but the same was refused to be accepted as per endorsement made thereon. Thereafter, again the rent for the period from 01.10.2004 to 31.03.2005 was sent vide cheque through registered A.D. Post which was returned undelivered as not accepted by petitioner. Thereafter, again rent was offered/ tendered to the petitioner time to time, but the same was never accepted. The respondent again sent the rent for 26 months w.e.f. 01.10.2004 to 30.11.2006 through money order which was returned undelivered as refused/ not accepted by petitioner. Thereafter, again the respondent E78833/16 Page 4/22 personally tendered the entire rent to the petitioner, however petitioner avoided to receive the same. Thereafter, the respondent vide legal notice dated 29.01.2007 offered and tendered the entire arrears of rent i.e. for 28 months w.e.f. 01.10.2004 to 31.01.2007 vide cheque. The said notice sent through registered A.D. Post received back undelivered, whereas the said notice was served through UPC. Thereafter, the respondent again sent the rent w.e.f. 01.10.2004 till 31.03.2007 vide two money orders, but the same were returned back undelivered as refused by the petitioner. The respondent again sent whole of arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.10.2004 to 31.05.2007 vide two money orders which were also returned back undelivered as refused. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition U/s 27 of DRC Act on 01.06.2007 seeking permission to deposit entire arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.10.2004 to 31.05.2007 @ Rs. 180/ per month and respondent was allowed to deposit rent w.e.f. 01.10.2005 to 31.05.2007.
8. It is further contended that the respondent is not served with any notice dated 20.04.2007 sent by/ on behalf of petitioner by UPC, or any other means. However, he had already increased the monthly rent of Rs. 180/ per month by 10% and offered and tendered the rent of Rs. 198/ per month to the petitioner for the period 01.06.2007 to 31.10.2007 which was returned as unclaimed to respondent who again sent the rent at the aforesaid rate for the period 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2008 which was also returned back unclaimed. It E78833/16 Page 5/22 is contended that the petitioner was aware that respondent is living at Chandigarh for the last several years and his premises i.e. shop in dispute and premises at Moti Gate is lying locked for the last several years. It is also stated that the respondent in regular intervals keeps the premises open. The petitioner has not stated in his evidentiary affidavit about the rent offered and tendered by the respondent of the tenanted premises through money order dated 10.10.2007 @ Rs. 198/ per month i.e. with increase of 10% in the rent of Rs. 180/ per month w.e.f. 01.06.2007 to 31.10.2007 which has been returned unclaimed by the petitioner. There is no second default in making payment of rent of the tenanted premises by respondent to petitioner. It is submitted that in addition to one Kothari and Dalan, common passage, open courtyard, common toilet is also part and parcel of the tenanted premises. The correctness of site plan is not admitted for want/ supply copy thereof to the respondent.
9. Petitioner has filed replication and the averments made in the petition have been reiterated and reaffirmed.
10. In support of his case, the petitioner has got examined himself as PW1. In rebuttal, respondent has got examined Sh. Ashwani Khanna (son of respondent) as DW1.
11. PW1 has deposed almost on the same lines as averred in E78833/16 Page 6/22 the petition. He proved copy of counter foil of rent receipt showing payment of rent upto 30.09.2004 which is Ex. PW1/1; copy of legal notice dated 20.04.2007 is Ex. PW1/2; original postal receipts and UPC are Ex. PW1/3, Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/5, respectively; returned registered A.D. Covers are Ex. PW1/6 & Ex. PW1/7; copy of order dated 10.08.1998 is Ex. PW1/8 and site plan is Ex. PW1/9. In his crossexamination it is accepted by this witness that prior to filing of this case, the tenant has filed a DR Petition No. 103/07 which was filed on 01.06.2007. It is also accepted by him that he has filed objections in the said DR Petition, however his objections were dismissed. It is accepted by him that rent for the period from 01.10.2004 to 31.05.2007 was deposited in that DR Petition. This witness also accepted filing of a number of subsequent DR Petitions which were also allowed. Copies of the said DR Petitions are exhibited as Ex. PW1/R1 to Ex. PW1/R4. A number of questions were asked to this witness regarding sending of money orders by the tenant to him, which were refused to be accepted by him, though this witness accepted the suggestions given by the counsel, however simultaneously voluntarily submitted that he had not refused and not received the money orders. The crossexamination of this witness on this aspect is as follows, it is accepted by him that respondent has filed original documents regarding sending of rent from October, 2004 to November, 2006 @ Rs. 180/ per month by money order dated 28.11.2006, however it is voluntarily stated by this witness that he did E78833/16 Page 7/22 not refuse and did not receive the rent by money order. It is accepted by this witness that respondent had issued a legal notice dated 29.01.2007 through registered A.D. Post and UPC to him, copy of the said notice Ex. PW1/RS, copy of UPC is Ex. PW1/RX1, copy of registered A.D. Post is Ex. PW1/RZ, it is further stated by this witness that he cannot say about endorsement of postal authority on Ex. PW1/RZ. It is stated by him that it is possible that cheque no. 281162 dated 22.01.2007 was sent by the respondent towards rent from October, 2004 to January, 2007 in his name alongwith legal notice, however it is voluntarily stated by him that he has not received the said notice as well as cheque. Similarly, it is stated by him that the respondent would have sent money order dated 19.03.2007 which is Ex. PW1/RB, however it is stated by him that the same was not received. It is accepted by him that Ex. PW1/RB bears report of refusal, however it is voluntarily stated by him that he had not refused as he did not receive the money order. It is accepted by him that respondent sent rent vide money order dated 21.05.2007, Ex. PW1/R C, however it is stated by him that he did not receive the same. It is accepted by him that there is refusal report by postal authority, however it is stated by him that he did not refuse to accept the said money order.
12. In rebuttal, DW1 has deposed almost on the same lines as averred in the written statement. He proved registered General Power E78833/16 Page 8/22 of Attorney in respect of H.No. 1011, Sector44B, Chandigarh executed in his favour which is Ex. DW1/1; Voter ICard is Ex. DW 1/2; notarized Special Power of Attorney executed by his father/ respondent in his favour to appoint him as his SPA Holder in the present case which bears signatures of his father/ respondent at point Mark 'A' is Ex. DW1/3; Voter ICard of his father/ respondent, Senior Citizen ICard of his father/ respondent, passbooks of saving bank accounts in the name of his father/ respondent bearing no. 15723 maintained with Union Bank of India, Sector21C Branch, Chandigarh (running into six pages) and 47503 maintained with Union Bank of India, Sector17B Branch, Chandigarh (running into six pages) is Ex. DW1/4 (Colly) and photocopy of Income Tax Returns for the assessment years 200304 and 200405 of his father/ respondent and Income Tax Refund Order for the assessment year 200304 of his father/ respondent is MarkX (Colly). In his crossexamination it is accepted by this witness that they did not deposit the rent in the Court from October, 2004 to October, 2007.
13. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
14. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 14 (2) of D.R.C. Act. For the sake of convenience Section 14 (2) of D.R.C. Act is reproduced here : E78833/16 Page 9/22 "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) if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by section 15:
Provided that no tenant shall be entitled to the benefit under this subsection, if, having obtained such benefit once in respect of any premises, he again makes a default in the payment of rent of those premises for three consecutive months".
15. Following are the relevant judgments of superior Courts on the issue in question :
(i) In Sarla Goel & Ors. Vs. Kishan Chand, (2009) 7 SCC 658 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows : "28. From a conjoint reading of this provision referred to herein above and particularly Section 27 of the Act, in our view, it cannot be doubted that the procedure having been made by the Legislature how the rent can be deposited if it was refused to have been received or to grant receipt for the same. If that be the position, if such protection has been given to the tenant, the said procedure has to be strictly followed in the matter of taking steps in the event of refusal of the landlord to receive the rent or to grant receipt to the tenant. It is well settled that whether the word "may" shall be used as "shall", would depend upon the intention of the Legislature. It is not to be taken that once the word "may" is used by the Legislature in E78833/16 Page 10/22 Section 27 of the Act, would not mean that the intention of the Legislature was only to show that the provisions under Section 27 of the Act was directory but not mandatory.
29. In other words, taking into consideration the object of the Act and the intention of the Legislature and in view of the discussions made herein earlier, we are of the view that the word "may" occurring in Section 27 of the Act must be construed as a mandatory provision and not a directory provision as the word "may" , in our view, was used by the Legislature to mean that the procedure given in those provisions must be strictly followed as the special protection has been given to the tenant from eviction. Such a cannon of construction is certainly warranted because otherwise intention of the Legislature would be defeated and the class of landlords, for whom also, the beneficial provisions have been made for recovery of possession from the tenants on certain grounds, will stand deprived of them.
30. XXX
31. XXX
32. XXX
33. This Court in the aforesaid decision (Atma Ram v Shakuntala Rani (2005) 7 SCC 211), after examining Section 27 of the Act observed at paragraph 21 as follows : "The Act, therefore, prescribes what must be done by a tenant if the landlord does not accept rent tendered by him within the specified period. He is required to deposit E78833/16 Page 11/22 the rent in the Court of the Rent Controller giving the necessary particulars as required by Subsection (2) of Section 27, There is, therefore, a specific provision which provides the procedure to be followed in such a contingency. In view of the specific provisions of the Act it would not be open to a tenant to resort to any other procedure. If the rent is not deposited in the Court of the Rent Controller as required by Section 27 of the Act. and is deposited somewhere else, it shall not be treated as a valid payment/tender of the arrears of rent within the meaning of the Act and consequently the tenant must be held to be in default."
(ii) In Ram Prakash Vs. D.N. Srivastava, 126 (2006) DLT 6 it was observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as follows: "6. I have heard both the parties and have carefully gone through the written submissions filed by them as also the judgment under challenge. In my opinion, the words "neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which the notice of demand for payment of arrears has been served" in Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act would include in its ambit the interest accrued on the contractual amount as "rent" for use and occupation of the premises in question. The interest accrued on late payment under Section 26 of the Act becomes arrears of rent legally recoverable and if not paid within two months of the date of which notice of payment for arrears of rent has been E78833/16 Page 12/22 served on the tenant can render the tenant liable to be eviction under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act. For this proposition of law, I need hardly go beyond a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and Ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Ors., where the Supreme Court, though appreciating the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, has, with reference to the Delhi Rent Control Act, held that interest on arrears is part of rent required to be deposited by the tenant at the first hearing. It goes without saying that even the increase of rent by ten per cent envisaged under the Delhi Rent Control Act, would be legally recoverable rent and if the increase of ten per cent, as demanded in accordance with law, has not been paid or tendered within two months of the service of notice upon the tenant, action would lie under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act. The tenant cannot claim protection of contractual rates for use and occupation of the premises contrary to the statutory mandate which makes it obligatory upon the tenant to pay interest on delayed payment of rent as also enjoins upon him to pay a ten per cent increase in rent over the period of time. Consequently, I hold that "rent" includes in its ambit "contractual rent" together with "interest on delayed payment", if any, as also "statutory increase of rent" for the purpose of eviction under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act".
(iii) In Puneet Bajaj Vs. Baldev Kumar Pahwa, CM(M) 910/2008 decided on 12.05.2010 it was observed by Hon'ble High E78833/16 Page 13/22 Court of Delhi as follows : "6. The issue whether tendering of rent by money order was a valid tender or not is no more res integra. It is now settled law that in case money order is refused by the landlord or is not received for any reason whatsoever by the landlord, the next step to be taken by the tenant is to deposit the rent under Section 27 of DRC Act and mere sending of money order would not be considered as a valid tender [M.K. Mukunthan v. M. Pasupathi, 2001 RLR 537 (SC)]. I, therefore, find no force in the petition of the tenant assailing the order of learned ARCT on the above two counts.
7. XXX
8. XXX
9. XXX
10. This Court in Raghbir Singh v Sheela Wanti (2009) 2 RCR 220 observed as under :
"6. It is contended by learned counsel for the landlord that though the tender of rent to the advocate was not a legal tender, however, even if it is considered as a legal tender, the tenant had not made tender of rent due on the date of tender. The rent due would have included rent up to October 1992 plus interest @ 15% per annum as provided under Section 26 of DRC Act.........
12. This amendment (in Section 26 of DRC Act) was inserted by the legislature in 1988. The amendment makes it abundantly clear that the rent is to be paid month by month and where E78833/16 Page 14/22 any default occurs for payment of rent, the tenant has to pay simple interest @ 15% per annum from the date of which such payment of rent became due till the date when it is paid. Thus, the legislature made it clear that in case the rent is not tendered month by month by the tenant, the tenant incurs additional legal liability of paying interest @ 15% on the amount due for the delayed period. This additional liability has become part of the rent. A landlord can recover from the tenant only legally recoverable arrears rent and the landlord has no liberty to recover beyond what has already been agreed upon between the parties or the market rent. Where the rent is not paid by month to month, the interest over the rent, as levied by the statute, becomes part of the legally recoverable rent and it cannot be said that unless there is an amendment in Section 14 (1) (a) or Section 15, the provisions of Section 26 would not apply. The rent due would mean that the rent due as per law and where the law specifically provides that if rent is not paid for the month when it is due, it has to be paid with interest of 15% per annum, then the rent due would include the rent plus the interest over it. The tenant in this case had been tendering rent with a gap of six month or nine month or so and had not been tendering rent month by month. The tenant had to tender rent along with accrued interest of 15% per annum to the landlord in view of the statutory provisions of DRC Act. In the case in hand, the landlord had specifically demanded interest of 15% over the delayed rent from the tenant vide notice of demand and once this E78833/16 Page 15/22 notice is made, non tendering of rent with interest, tantamount to non fulfillment of obligation under Section 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act. I consider that the tender made by the tenant was not in accordance with law and was not a valid tender.
11. XXX
12. In Atma Ram v Shakuntala Rani (supra), the Supreme Court had categorically laid down as to what is required to be done by the tenant in case of refusal and observed as under:
"19. It will thus appear that this Court has consistently taken the views that in Rent Control Legislations if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act. If any condition precedent is to be fulfilled before the benefit can be claimed, he must strictly comply with that condition. If he fails to do so he cannot take advantage of the benefit conferred by such a provision."
16. In the light of abovestated legal principles the undersigned shall deal with the evidence led by the parties to decide whether the respondent/ tenant has again makes a default in the payment of rent of premises in question for three consecutive months, or not.
17. A judgment dated 10.08.1998 U/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act has already been passed in favour of petitioner and against the respondent. The ownership has already been decided in the said E78833/16 Page 16/22 judgment. The ground raised by the respondent regarding correctness of site plan has also been decided in the said judgment. Now the question which is left to be decided by the Court is whether the respondent/ tenant has committed default in making payment of rent of premises in question for three consecutive months, or not.
18. From evaluation of the evidences of this case following factual positions emerge :
(i) It is admitted position that in a previous petition U/s 14 (1)
(a) of DRC Act, benefit of Section 14 (2) of DRC Act was given to this witness vide order dated 10.09.1998, as apparent from Ex. PW1/8 (certified copy of the order).
(ii) There is no rent receipt on record for the period after 30.09.2004. Even the respondent has not filed any such rent receipt. It is the stand of the respondent that after 30.09.2004 petitioner never accepted the rent.
(iii) It is claimed by respondent that he had sent the rent by way of a number of money orders. First one of the same was sent on 30.11.2004, however the same was received back with the note "unclaimed", thus it is apparent that this money order was not refused by the landlord. It is claimed that the next money order was sent on 15.02.2005 for the rent from 01.10.2004 till 31.03.2005. It is claimed that the said money order was also received back with the report "refused". It is further claimed that thereafter, the respondent sent E78833/16 Page 17/22 money order on 28.11.2006 for rent of 26 months from 01.10.2004 till 30.11.2006.
Though these money orders were allegedly sent by the respondent, however respondent does not come in evidence to prove sending of the said money orders. No witness from postal department was examined to prove the sending of these money orders. Rather, these money orders were shown to PW1 in his crossexamination. Suggestions were given to him by showing the original documents that these money orders were sent by the respondent, being a layman the petitioner accepted the suggestions, however he simultaneously clarified than and there that he did not refuse, or receive the said money orders. Despite that the said money orders were exhibited in the evidence of PW1 which is not a proper way of proving a document. Thus, first of all factum of sending these money orders has not been duly proved on record.
(iv) It is to be noted that the last rent receipt is dated 17.05.2004 wherein rent till 30.09.2004 was paid, after 30.09.2004 the rent was not offered from month to month, rather the alleged first money order was sent only on 30.11.2004 i.e. after two months, admittedly this money order was returned due to the reason "unclaimed" and not due to the reason "refused". Thus, it is apparent that the rent sent by this money order was never legally tendered to the landlord. It is to be noted that in Puneet Bajaj's case (Supra) it was observed that mere E78833/16 Page 18/22 sending of money order would not be considered as a valid tender, unless the tenant takes the next step of filing a petition U/s 27 of DRC Act. Admittedly, in the present case the first DR Petition filed by the tenant only on 01.06.2007. It is to be noted that the tenant had not tendered interest due on the rent despite the fact that he was paying the rent for October, 2004 vide a money order sent only on 30.11.2004. Even in the next money order which was allegedly sent on 15.02.2005 the component of interest due to delayed payment was not tendered, similarly in the next money order allegedly sent on 28.11.2006 that component of interest on the delayed payment was not tendered. It is to be noted that even in the petition U/s 27 of DRC Act filed by the tenant/ respondent on 01.06.2007 the component of interest was not included. In these circumstances, the said tender of rent by way of money order, or by filing of DR Petition will not amount to legal tender of rent. Reliance placed upon Ram Prakash's case (Supra) and Puneet Bajaj's case (Supra).
(v) In the present case, it is claimed by the respondent that legal notice dated 20.04.2007 sent by the petitioner was never served on him as the notice was not sent to his Chandigarh address, it is contended that petitioner was very much aware that the respondent is not residing in Delhi, further the suit property was also lying locked since 2000. It is to be noted that the petitioner has sent the legal notice at the suit property as well as Mori Gate, Delhi address of the tenant.
E78833/16 Page 19/22It is admitted position of law that serving notice at the tenanted premises amounts to sufficient notice to the tenant and the landlord is not obliged to send notice to every other addresses of the tenant, more so, in view of the stand of the respondent/ tenant in his written statement that in regular intervals he keeps the premises open.
(vi) Mere denial on the part of respondent that legal notice was not served on him will not establish that legal notice was not served on him. In view of the fact that the notice sent by UPC was never received back unserved, a presumption would arise that the notice was duly served.
(vii) It is to be noted that it was only after 20.04.2007 (i.e. date of notice U/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act) that the respondent filed petition U/s 27 of DRC Act to deposit the rent on 01.06.2007 for the period from October, 2004 till 31.05.2007. This action on the part of the respondent clearly suggest that he had received the legal notice sent by the petitioner that is why he filed the petition U/s 27 of DRC Act three years after the alleged first refusal on the part of the landlord to accept the rent. Furthermore, in the legal notice apart from demanding rent @ Rs. 180/ per month, the landlord called the tenant to pay increased rent @ Rs. 198/ per month w.e.f. 01.06.2007. It is not a coincidence that the petition U/s 27 of DRC Act for the period from October, 2004 till 31.05.2007 was filed by the tenant on 01.06.2007 at previous rate of rent. It is also to be noted that in the subsequent DR Petition containing rent for the period from June, 2007 E78833/16 Page 20/22 onwards the tenant himself raised the rate of rent to Rs. 198/ exactly as demanded by the landlord. These facts shows that the tenant was well aware about the legal notice sent by the petitioner/ landlord. Hence, it can be safely held that the legal notice dated 20.04.2007 was duly served on the tenant/ respondent.
(viii) It has already been observed that a tenant is under obligation as per Section 26 of DRC Act to pay interest @ 15% per annum on the delayed payment of the rent. Even in the present case, in his legal notice dated 20.04.2007 the landlord demanded interest on the rent, which is even otherwise legal obligation of the tenant, despite that at the time of filing the petition U/s 27 of DRC Act, the tenant did not include the component of interest in the same. It is to be noted that a Rent Controller while disposing of an application U/s 27 of DRC Act does not decide the rate of rent, such order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties qua rate of rent. In these circumstances, it can be safely held that though within two months of receiving the legal notice dated 20.04.2007, the tenant had filed the petition U/s 27 of DRC Act to deposit the arrears of rent, however the same cannot be considered as legal tender of rent/ valid deposit of rent due to lack of deposit of the component of interest.
19. In view of the abovestated discussion, it can be safely held that respondent/ tenant has not duly complied with the notice dated 20.04.2007, as interest as per Section 26 of DRC Act has not been E78833/16 Page 21/22 paid with arrears of rent in petition U/s 27 of DRC Act. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for an order of eviction U/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act. This time respondent is not entitled for the benefit U/s 14 (2) of DRC Act as it is his second default. Accordingly, an eviction order U/s 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of tenanted premises bearing no. 430, Kucha Brij Nath, Chandni Chowk, Delhi110006 , as shown in red colour in the site plan, Ex. PW1/9.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) on 11.04.2018 Administrative Civil Judgecum Additional Rent Controller (Central) Delhi (This judgment contains 22 pages in total) E78833/16 Page 22/22 E78833/16 11.04.2018 Present : Proxy Counsel for petitioner.
None for respondent.
Clarifications sought.
Put up the matter for orders at 4:00 pm. (Gajender Singh Nagar) ACJ/ARC (Central), Delhi/11.04.2018 At 4:00 pm. Present : None.
Vide separate judgment, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled for an order of eviction U/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act. This time respondent is not entitled for the benefit U/s 14 (2) of DRC Act as it is his second default. Accordingly, an eviction order U/s 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of tenanted premises bearing no. 430, Kucha Brij Nath, Chandni Chowk, Delhi110006 , as shown in red colour in the site plan, Ex. PW1/9.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Gajender Singh Nagar) ACJ/ARC (Central), Delhi/11.04.2018 E78833/16 Page 23/22