Delhi District Court
Balasaraswathy vs Kvsn Raju on 14 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MR. SANJAY KUMAR
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/RCT: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
RCT No. 01/2020
CNR No. DLWT01-000030-2020
In re:
Balasaraswathy
47E, Pocket JC
3rd Floor, DDA Flats
Hari Enclave, Hari Nagar
New Delhi-110064. . . . . . . Appellant
Versus
KVSN Raju
A-2/56, 2nd Floor
Pankha Road, Janakpuri
New Delhi-110058. . . . . Respondent
Date of filing of Eviction Petition : 17.08.2010
Date of impugned judgment : 19.12.2019
Date of filing of the appeal : 07.01.2020
Date of arguments advanced : 28.11.2022
Date of judgment : 14.12.2022
Appearances:
Appellant in person.
Respondent in person with Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide an appeal preferred under Section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short, 'DRC Act') RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 1 of 36 whereby the appellant/tenant has assailed the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2019 passed in the Eviction Petition bearing No.25899/2016 titled as 'KVSN Raju vs. Balasaraswathy' by the Court of Mr. Ajay Nagar, the then Ld. ARC (West), THC, Delhi (in short, 'Ld. Trial Court'), whereby Eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act was allowed and the petition under Section 14(1)(c) of the DRC Act was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the appellant that by way of the impugned judgment, she had been directed to pay or tender rent @ Rs. 2,000/- per month alongwith 15% interest from August, 2009 till date which direction is arbitrary, perverse, erroneous, illegal, suffers from material irregularity and passed with by deliberately closing the eyes to the entire evidence of the appellant and with biased mind which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
3. It is stated that in the absence of pleading all the fundamental elements as mandated by Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act in the Eviction petition, does any cause of action arise at the first place. It is further stated that while disposing off the Eviction suit finally, is it permissible for the Ld. Trial Court to leave the rate of rent open for guessing by not recording an affirmative finding on it but at the same time directing that "since the rent is not @ Rs.1800/- per month, it should be paid Rs. 2000/- per month" without justifying as to on what grounds it was directed so. It is further stated that can an Eviction suit be brought by the landlord on a wrong, defective, incomplete, incorrect, RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 2 of 36 insufficient address, furthermore with incorrect, wrong site plan/wrong measurements of property, particularly when the landlord is fully aware of the exact, correct address of the tenant and many litigations on that correct address had been instituted long before the present Eviction suit as well as immediately after the Eviction suit by the landlord.
4. It is stated that the fact that the Court notice sent on 19.08.2010 on the address contained on the Eviction Petition was also returned back unserved as recorded in the order dated 26.10.2020 cannot be ignored. It is further stated that a notice sent at the said incomplete and incorrect address, which was returned by all three different competent authorities with the endorsements "destination address incomplete", "insufficient address", "incorrect address", "address problem", "destination address incomplete" constitute a valid service particularly when the landlord is aware of the correct address and further the tenancy terms and the lease agreement expressly provide for the correct address, mode of service and alternate address, which contractual terms were not complied with by the landlord.
5. It is stated that when both the registered post receipt as well as the DTDC courier receipt as relied in the Eviction petition to show service of notice, on their face contain an incomplete, insufficient address and both the said Post master as well as the DTDC Courier confirmed in writing about return of the said envelopes to the sender owing to incomplete address and by making an endorsement on the envelope "destination address incomplete" attaching therewith the proof RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 3 of 36 i.e. tracking result - would presumption of service under Section 114 Evidence Act and Section 27 G. C. Act shall apply against the tenant.
6. It is stated that why not the presumption under Section 144 Evidence Act against the landlord should be made on his non- production of the returned envelope that "has the returned envelopes been produced, the incorrect address stated thereon as well as the endorsement made thereon the said returned envelopes by the Postman and DTDC Courier would become open before the Court and that the same would disprove service and expose the falsity of the landlord'. It is further stated that does a landlord approaching the Court with unclean hands by not pleading the fact of return of the said envelopes containing the alleged notice, rather concealing the material fact of such return, and not placing/producing the returned envelopes on judicial record with a view to conceal the incorrect address stated on the returned envelopes and to conceal the said endorsements made by the said competent authorities and further making a false averment in the evidence affidavit as well as in the cross examination that the said envelopes were never returned back- entitled to any relief.
7. It is stated that do the words "unserved" and "not tendered"
mean "not delivered" or do they mean "not offered at all" and if they mean "not offered at all" then, is there any difference between saying "unserved" and saying "returned due to incorrect / insufficient address".
It is further stated that when the service of notice by the above two modes was disbelieved by the Ld. Predecessor Mr. Devender Kumar RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 4 of 36 on 21.02.2012 in the absence of plaint averments to that effect and further by the non-production of AD Card by the landlord owing to which disbelief the interim relief under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act was denied by him, then with no change in pleadings and facts after 21.02.2012 can the said notice that remained unserved upto 21.02.2012 be replaced by belief by the Ld. Successor ARC in the said continued absence of required pleading.
8. It is stated that on the face of the original pleading / admitted position of the landlord that the envelopes containing the notice was never returned back, can a fresh, new, contradictory plea be permitted to be introduced after 11 years of the admitted position to say that the said envelopes were infact returned back that too through cross-examination of the tenant by orally quoting to him about the reference of some other notice allegedly contained in the Written Statement and rejoinder filed in some other case. It is further stated that can the amended Written Statement of the tenant which was taken on record by the Hon'ble High Court "except for withdrawal of admission" be found fault with on any other ground by the Ld. ARC by travelling beyond the said exception and that can the two certificates on non-service issued by the Post Master and DTDC Courier which were expressly directed by the Hon'ble High Court to be read in evidence, be deliberately ignored by the ld. Trial Court.
9. It is stated that the appellant preferred a transfer petition against the Ld. Trial Court seeking transfer of the case in August, 2019, RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 5 of 36 which petition had to be "dismissed as not pressed" by the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 20.09.2019 in lieu of taking the amended Written Statement on record. It is further stated that since then, the bias and prejudice for the appellant had only aggravated which could be noticed in the orders passed by the Ld. Trial Court and is also reflecting in the cross-examination dated 10.10.2019 and 04.12.2019. It is further stated that the Ld. Trial Court falsely held a certified true copy of the rent receipt dated 03.08.209 Ex. RW-1/4 as a photocopy and falsely mentioned in the impugned order that the said rent receipt was not attached with the Written Statement and again falsely mentioned that the lease agreement was introduced in the evidence to cause prejudice to the tenant and to render favour to the landlord.
10. It is further stated that the respondent was receiving bulk money from the appellant and was deducting monthly rent from the said bulk money regularly and the appellant was having a credit of Rs.2,31,000/- with the respondent even as on the date of filing of the Eviction petition, which facts remain unrebutted and the rent receipt Ex.RW-1/4, RW-1/5 and RW-1/6 but also by the uncontroverted affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and cross-examination of the tenant.
11. The impugned judgment is assailed interalia on the grounds that the respondent did not plea the correct address and did not sue the proper and necessary party in his Eviction petition. It is further stated that entire record relied by the appellant clearly shows RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 6 of 36 that the premises occupied by the appellant is in the Third Floor only and not in the terrace or in any G-8 area and that the respondent himself has prosecuted the appellant in various legal cases by showing her address as 47E, Pocket-JC, 3rd Floor, Hari Enclave, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064 in case bearing CC No. 338/1/2014, 13/2015, 520407/2016 and 243/2019. It is further stated that Ld. Trial wrongly recorded an inherently improbable finding in the impugned judgment that the lease agreement, tenancy terms and receipt dated 03.08.2009 were introduced for the first time in evidence which were placed on record on 05.02.2011, which were retained by the respondent.
12. It is stated that the said wrong findings of the Ld. Trial Court miserably falls flat on its face and stands negated by the clear admission of the respondent as contained in his application dated 17.07.2013 that the appellant had produced the said documents in support of her claim and that the appellant had relied, produced and based her claim and her defence on Mark 'A' and 'B', originals of which have been retained by he respondent and Ex. RW-1/4, which application was dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2014. It is further stated that the findings of the Ld. ARC that the said three documents were not placed with the Written Statement and that they were introduced directly into the evidence of RW-1 is patently wrong.
13. It is stated that the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that the said receipt dated 03.08.2009 Ex. RW-1/4 is a photocopy is also an utter false; and that Ex. RW-1/4 is not a photocopy but a certified copy RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 7 of 36 of the Court made from the original of the said receipt filed and exhibited in the Court of Ld. ADJ Mr. Vikas Dhull in the civil suit pending between the same parties as averred in the evidence affidavit which remained unrebutted. It is further stated that the fact that the original of Ex. RW-1/4 and Mark-A were filed in another case No. U3/10 way back on 05.11.2012 as acknowledged by order dated 05.11.2012 therein which would throw away the said finding of the Ld. ARC by common sense and reasonably suggest that a prudent tenant like the appellant would not have failed to file the said documents at the first instance in a case like Eviction suit wherein the said documents mattered the most.
14. It is stated that Ld. ARC's finding about the placing the originals of Mark-A, Mark-B and importing Order 8 Rule 1A CPC upon Mark-A and Mark-B are also patently wrong, devoid of legal reasoning, travelling beyond powers not prescribed by DRC Act, and passed by deliberately closing his eyes to the entire evidence placed by the appellant. It is further stated that Ex. RW-1/2, RW-1/3, RW-1/4, RW- 1/24, mark A-3, A-4, A-5 and to clause No. 29, 30, 38 in mark 'A' all of which would go to show that the origins of Mark-A and Mark-Bare in the power and in possession of the respondent which he did not produce in the Court despite service of notice dated 19.02.2011 which was sent at all his available addresses including on the address of his then counsel Mr. Manish Malhotra vide Ex. RW-1/2 and RW-1/3. It is further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held umpteen times that the ld. Rent Controller is not a civil Court but only deemed to be so and that the proceedings before Ld. Rent Controller are enquiry and summary in RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 8 of 36 nature strictly governed by DRC Act only and therefore, without any general sweeping powers and that the rules of CPC do not apply before Ld. ARC stricto sensu and in toto except for the purpose confined on Section 36(2) of the DRC Act which Section does not prescribe for application of Order 8 Rule 1A CPC.
15. It is stated that another finding of the Ld. Trial Court implying thereby that he required any permission from the Hon'ble High Court to tale the Lease Agreement Mark-A and Mark-B on record, is also without any legal reasoning and is uncalled for as the appellant had placed Mark-A and Mark-B on record several years prior to the amended Written Statement, which was taken on record by the Hon'ble High Court in its entirety except for "withdrawal of admission".
16. It is stated that the appellant ha snot effectively rebutted the presumption of service of notice is reckless, perverse, contrary to law, arrived at with a biased mind and hence legally untenable. It is further stated that the question of rebuttal of presumption arises only when the presumption is made out upon the notice being sent at the correct address, which was never available to the landlord as the envelopes carrying the notice allegedly sent by postal receipt and courier receipt apparently contained incorrect, incomplete, insufficient address and which were returned to the sender with the endorsement "destination address incomplete" as certified by the postal and DTDC Courier vide Ex. RW-1/8 and RW-1/9, which certificates are directed to be read in evidence by the Hon'ble High Court.
RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 9 of 3617. It is stated that in the present case, the tenancy is governed by Mark-A as is evidence from Ex. RW-1/4, RW-1/5 and Ex. RW-1/6, which shall prevail over Section 106 TPA with regard to "service" as well as "mode of service" because it is subject to a written contract, which point of law is also raised in the Written Statement dated 05.02.2011. It is further stated that the terms agreed in clause No. 15, 16 and 32 of Mark-A with regard to "service of notice" were not complied with by the respondent. It is further stated that the respondent not only concealed the fact of return of said two envelopes in his petition but had also withheld the best evidence by not producing the said envelopes with a view to conceal the endorsement made therein.
18. It is stated that even the Court notice sent by the Court on the address stated in the petition was returned unserved and the plaint was served in the Court room immediately after completion of hearing of another case No. U3/10 on 08.12.2010 which fact is mentioned in the Written Statement filed on 05.02.2011. It is further stated that the ld. Trial Court turned blind eye to all the said facts and deliberately, knowingly, wrongly placed the presumption under Section 27 of G. C. Act on the appellant.
19. It is stated that the fresh plea introduced by afterthought by the respondent in the cross-examination dated 10.10.2019 that he had served a notice in some undisclosed connected case had to be discarded qua which the appellant was compelled to give RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 10 of 36 reply/explanation in her evidence affidavit Ex. RW-1/A at para No.3 to 5 which also remained unrebutted for want of cross-examination. It is further stated that the entire cross-examination of RW-1 dated 04.12.2019 conducted defying the rules of pleading and proof and the rules of cross-examination, which was objected to by the appellant and which objections were falsely recorded as "shouting" by the ld. Trial Court.
20. It is stated that without prejudice to the right accrued by the said inadmissibility, the appellant further submitted that neither any service through the said case No. U3/10 was pleaded nor the record of the said case was pleaded nor the appellant had occasion to reply to the same in the absence of pleading to that effect nor the written statement, rejoinder, notice, etc. from case No. U3/10 nor the same were placed on record to ascertain their relevance for the purpose of Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act. Is is further stated that on the contrary, it is admitted by the respondent that the notice allegedly supplied in the said case was for "termination of tenancy".
21. It is stated that the written statement quoted in the cross- examination is equally inadmissible, which was filed by him on 06.07.2010 in reply to the petition for restoration of electricity and so also the rejoinder filed therein on 08.12.2010 in the reply to the said inadmissible written statement. It is further stated that the said rejoinder was neither verified as true and correct nor was accompanied by any affidavit vouching for the truthfulness of its contents. It is further RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 11 of 36 stated that the cross examining counsel Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi practiced fraud upon the appellant while cross examining in order to mislead by quoting false dates of all the documents. It is further stated that the entire falsity of the said questions is exposed from the orders dated 06.07.2010 and 08.12.2010; and that from the said orders, it is apparent that no notice of any kind accompanied the written statement dated 06.07.2010 nor was ever supplied by the respondent in case No U3/10.
22. It is stated that as regards the subsequent question on one alleged reply filed by KVSN Raju on 27.04.2020 to an application for restoration of water supply, it is answered by the appellant that the same was not supplied to him on 27.04.2010; and that vide order dated 12.05.2010 on application filed by the appellant, the respondent was directed to supply the written statement as well as documents therewith, which was supplied on 06.07.2010 alongwith the second written statement for the second petition for restoration of electricity. It is further stated that upon absence of supply of the said notice, another application was moved by the appellant and the respondent was once again directed to supply the notice vide order dated 08.12.2010; and that vide order dated 12.05.2010, 06.07.2010 and 08.12.2010, it is apparent that the respondent never supplied any notice in case No. U3/10.
23. It is stated that on the day the said rejoinder was written, the appellant had no occasion or opportunity to know as to on what RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 12 of 36 address the notice alleged in the Written Statement was actually sent by the respondent and was merely presuming that it might have been sent at the correct address as agreed in the contract Mark-A and might have been returned owing to her being out of station as no family member was available behind her. It is further stated that the said presumption was rebutted by plausible evidence on 03.02.2011 when the area Postman confirmed that one registered AD envelope was returned by him straightaway without tendering with endorsement 'unserved" due to wrong, incomplete and incorrect address; and that the same confirmation was also given by the DTDC Courier. It is thus stated that the burden was upon the respondent to produce the said returned envelope and to show to the Court as to for what reason the said two envelopes were returned back to him.
24. It is stated that so inadmissible is the alleged inspection of the said case file spanning for an unrebutted period of a single minute from 3:59 pm to 4:00 pm, which inspection was done to ascertain the paper count as filed in the judicial file by the respondent because the petitioner therein was supplied only three pages of the Written Statement without any accompanying documents on 27.04.2010. It is further stated that from single minute inspection, the petitioner therein could only see that the written statement ran into a big bunch of papers alongwith many documents attached therewith.
25. It is stated that while the finding of the Ld. Trial Court about not filing the original receipt dated 03.08.2019 is rendered patently RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 13 of 36 wrong and stand negated by Ex. RW-1/4, RW-1/5, RW-1/6 which are actually certified copies of their respective originals, the factum of Rs.43,200/- and Rs. 27,000/- as paid by the appellant long before the filing of the Eviction petition is not disbelieved / disputed by him in the impugned judgment, which payments is alleged to have been proved by the cross-examination of RW-1. It is further stated that the statement of account Ex. RW-1/5 and acknowledgment Ex. RW-1/6 which are undisputed, unrebutted and thus, admitted documents were also not disbelieved / disputed by the Ld. Trial Court. It is further stated that even on the date of filing of Eviction petition, the appellant was having a credit of Rs. 2.31 lakhs with the respondent and was thus never a defaulter of rent and was getting the rent deducted by making regular request without fail and the respondent too never refuse for the same. It is further stated that as per the agreed terms, the respondent waived the rent w.e.f. August, 2009 to January, 2010 as the essential amenities were disconnected during the said period; and that the essential amenities were again disconnected on 15.02.2010 and again on 29.03.2010.
26. It is stated that the respondent was directed vide judgment Ex. RW-1/1 to restore the same but the respondent did not restore the water supply at all and a contempt application is also filed against the non-restoration. It is further stated that the electricity too was disconnected again on 01.05.2019 and a restoration petition under Section 45 of the DRC Act is pending for restoration in the Court of Mr.Akash Jain. It is further stated that under Clause 10 of the tenancy RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 14 of 36 terms dated 25.04.2009 Mark-B, the money spent by the appellant in the premises is adjustable against rent; and that the money of Rs. 27,000/- spent by the appellant in the premises remain unrebutted from Mark A-3, A-4, A-5, Ex. RW-1/24, Mark-A and also by the cross- examination of RW-1.
27. It is stated that the each and every document pertaining to payment of money by the appellant had escaped the attention of the ld. Trial Court and it cannot be a mere inadvertence but a deliberate act of closing the eyes, which could not be possible had he not been biased. It is further stated that the said fact can also be gauged from his throwing the law to the wind and wrongly admitting an inadmissible document i.e. photocopy Ex. PW-1/2 at the first place and entries Mark A-1 and A-5 irrespective of the denial of making of the said payments by the appellant in her written statement and written objection thereby objecting to its very admissibility and mode of proof as recorded in order dated 09.04.2015.
28. It is stated that out of the said five entries, entry Mark A-1 and A-2 were not originally relied in the Eviction petition but were directly introduced into the evidence by PW-1 for the first time on 09.04.2015 as is evidence from the same of Rs. 4,000/- + 15,000/- + 15,000/- + 15,000/- + 26,000/- as relied in Ex. PW-1/7 and the list of documents attached therewith, which list mentions of the alleged passbook being from February, 2007 only whereas entry Mark A-1 and A-2 pertains to the year 2005 with different amounts, which were RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 15 of 36 denied to have been made in the written statement and which denials escaped the attention of the Ld. Trial Court.
29. It is stated that Ld. Trial Court wrongly relied upon the said self serving inadmissible Ex. PW-1/7 and it is not his findings as to what is the rate of rent, which was left open and ambiguous which is evident from his words "the rent is not 1800/-". It is further stated that it is not the finding of Ld. Trial Court that the rate of rent is Rs. 2000/-; and that the respondent has not placed an iota of evidence to the effect that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,000/-per month whereas appellant had placed on record several documents, all of which escaped from the eyes of the Ld. Trial Court owing to his prejudiced mind.
30. It is stated that lastly, the Ld. Trial Court showed a favourable bent of mind towards the respondent in the present case since 01.08.2019 when the case file came into his hands owing to which the appellant sought for transfer of the case from his Court; and that the said transfer petition could be decided on merits, it had to be compulsorily dismissed as not pressed in lieu of taking the amended written statement on record by the order of the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 20.09.2019. It is further stated that grave injustice has been caused to the appellant by the impugned judgment which would have been averted had the Eviction suit been transferred from the Ld. Trial Court. It is thus prayed that the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2019 and all proceeding emanating under Section 14(2) of the DRC Act be set aside.
RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 16 of 3631. Notice of the present appeal was issued to the respondent, who put in appearance through his counsel Mr. Anoop Prakash and contested the same.
32. I have heard the appellant in person and Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Advocate for the respondent and perused the records including Trial Court Records. Written arguments have also been filed on behalf of the respondent.
33. In order to appreciate the submissions of the parties, let us peruse the Trial Court record. As per Trial Court Record, the petitioner / landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(c) read with Section 14(5) of the DRC Act on the ground that the property i.e. terrace portion of DDA Janta Flat No. 47E, JC Pocket, Hari Nagar, Hari Enclave, New Delhi-110064 consisting of one room, kitchen, bathroom and gallery was given on rent by the him on 25.10.2005 to the respondent / tenant without any agreement in writing between them for a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- exclusive of water and electricity charges which as per the bills raised by the respective authorities to be shared in equal proportion by the respondent and the tenant of Flat No. 47E, JC Pocket, 2nd Floor. It is further stated that the respondent is a habitual defaulter in making payment of monthly rental and used to make payment towards water and electricity charges on persistent, continuous and repeated demands of the petitioner.
RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 17 of 3634. It is stated that the respondent / tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. August, 2009 and has also not paid her share / due towards electricity charges from mid of March, 2008 onwards and towards water charges w.e.f. June, 2009 onwards. It is further stated that the respondent is in arrears of rent of Rs. 24,000/- w.e.f. August, 2009 @ Rs. 2,000/- per month till July, 2010; and that she is in arrears of Rs.11,103/- towards dues of electricity w.e.f. March, 2008 to 22.04.2010 and Rs. 750/- towards water charges from June, 2009 till the date of filing of the eviction petition.
35. It is stated that legal notice dated 24.04.2010 in this regard and termination of tenancy has already been sent to the respondent by him; and that the copy of Passbook of his saving account and statement prepared by the respondent signifying her admission of her liability of electricity and water charges are also filed on record. It is further stated that the flat bearing No. 47E, JC Pocket, G-8 Area, Hari Enclave, Hari Nagar, New Delhi was vacated by the tenants thereof and the same is lying vacant from mid of February, 2010 due to nuisance creating, disturbing and harassing activities of the respondent and with regard to the same, police complaints have been lodged. It is further stated that when the petitioner approached the respondent in January, 2010 in respect of her nuisance activities and non-payment of dues, she undertook to vacate the premises by 30.04.2010 and promised to clear the dues prior to said date.
RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 18 of 3636. It is stated that the object of the respondent is to possess and enjoy the property free of cost without paying any rent, water and electricity charges and in furtherance thereto, she had filed two frivolous and baseless petitions under Section 45(3) of the DRC Act seeking restoration of electricity and water supply. It is further stated that the respondent without permission of the petitioner, initially in the month of April/May, 2010 connected electricity wires from the doorbell of the Flat No. 47E, JC Pocket, G-8 Area, Hari Enclave, Hari Nagar to the tenanted premises illegally; and that thereafter, disconnected the electricity supply of the said flat. It is stated that he issued legal notice dated 24.04.2010 to the respondent, which was served upon her but she did not reply to the same.
37. Written statement and amended Written Statement to the said Eviction petition was filed by the respondent / tenant denying the averments made by the petitioner / landlord and stating that the no notice as mandated was ever served / tendered upon the respondent or was brought to the knowledge of the respondent by the petitioner prior to the filing of the present petition as both the registered AD and DTDC courier were returned back to the sender of those envelopes for want of complete address of the respondent. It is further stated that she is not in appears of any rent or any other due as alleged and on the contrary, she had paid advance rent of Rs. 43,200/- for a period of 24 months vide a written lease agreement and receipt both dated 03.08.2009. It is denied that the rate of rent is Rs. 2,000/- per month exclusive of water and electricity charges which was to be shares in equal proportion by RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 19 of 36 the respondent with the other tenant whereas it is stated that the rate of rent is Rs.1800/- per month which is indivisible and inclusive of charges for usage of electricity, water, etc. It is further stated as per the written lease agreement entered on 03.08.2009 between the parties, the petitioner was under obligation to pay the electricity and water bills to the concerned authorities.
38. It is specifically denied that the present tenancy started on 25.10.2005 and stated that the respondent initially took the premises in question on lease around that period but the said lease was determined on 01.10.2006 by surrender and the legal possession vested in the petitioner from 01.10.2006. It is further stated that between 01.10.2006 and 24.04.2009, there was no contract of tenancy at all and thus, no tenant - landlord relationship existed between the present parties; and that the tenancy was created on 25.04.2009 by way of a fresh lease and not prior to 25.04.2009 vide tenancy terms and thereafter by written lease agreement entered upon 03.08.2009. It is further stated that the notice came to the knowledge of the appellant/tenant for the first time on 17.01.2015.
39. Rejoinder was filed by the petitioner to the written statement filed by the respondent denying the averments made by her and reiterating his averments made in the petition.
40. Ld. Trial Court vide the impugned Judgment dated 19.12.2019 held that the petitioner has been able to prove all the RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 20 of 36 ingredients of Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act in respect of non- payment of rent qua the tenanted premises and thus, an order under Section 15(1) of the DRC act was passed directing the respondent to pay or deposit or tender the rent to the petitioner @ Rs. 2,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.08.2009 till date alongwith simple interest @ 15% per annum within one month from the date of this order and also directed to pay the future rent at the same rate. It is further held that the petitioner has not been able to prove the ingredients of Section 14(1)(c) of the DRC Act and the same was dismissed.
41. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondent, it is stated that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the appellant had admitted in her Written Statement dated 04.02.2011 vide para 2 thereof to the Eviction Petition as well as in the cross-examination that the answering respondent is her landlord. It is further stated that the Eviction was filed by the respondent for Eviction of appellant which is filed after giving due notice to the tenant and that the legal notice dated 24.04.2010 was served via post/courier. It is further stated that in her amended Written Statement, she attempts to improve upon the issue by saying that post as well as courier were sent back for want of complete address.
42. It is stated that the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 20.09.2019 in CM(M) 1211/2019 titled Balasaraswathy vs. KVSN Raju vide para imposed certain conditions while allowing the amended Written Statement saying amongst others that "trial court to ensure that RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 21 of 36 there are no admissions which have been withdrawn by the petitioner". It is further stated that the appellant had inspected the case file on 28.04.2010 whereby she had every occasion to know about the legal demand notice attached therein with the reply of the landlord dated 27.04.2010. It is further stated that the appellant did not get examined any postal authority or courier official to prove her point of non-service of notice upon her while relying on Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It is further stated that the issue of service is extensively dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of M/s. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah SLP (Crl) No. 8783/2013 wherein another three Judge Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is quoted.
43. It is stated that the ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment from para 10 to 14 has after referring legal provisions, documents and cross-examination of appellant/tenant given very detailed and pin pointed finding that the service of the notice and rightly concluded that service of legal demand notice is proved. It is further stated that the appellant failed to prove that she was not in arrears of rent at the time when demand notice terminating tenancy was issued on 24.04.2010 and the passbook entry dated 28.10.2005 shows rent as Rs. 2,000/- Mark A-1 of the Ex. PW-1/2 (Colly). It is further stated that Ex. PW-1/7 shows the payments coming from appellant till 27.01.2009 was only Rs.75,000/- and with the said sum, she could survive default only till August, 2009.
RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 22 of 3644. It is stated that in the unproved Mark 'B' of the evidence of appellant where the appellant tenant has said to have paid a sum of Rs. 1,49,000/- is in complete contradiction to the false reply given in cross-examination dated 04.12.2019 thats he paid a sum of Rs. 43,200/- on 04.07.2009 and that the appellant could not stand consistent even to the made-up theory created by her. It is further stated in the cross-examination of the respondent/landlord, it has clearly come on record that the appellant is in arrears of rent since August, 2009. It is further stated that in the Eviction petition, it is clearly mentioned that the monthly rent was Rs. 2,000/- exclusive of electricity and water charges which is proved by the evidence of respondent / landlord and rebuttal thereof by tenant by way of a photocopy of lease agreement has gone unproved.
45. It is stated that frivolous allegations are made by the appellant against the ld. Trial Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed as even after having been given a chance by the ld. Trial Court after passing the impugned judgment, the appellant has not paid arrears of rent dues.
46. In order to decide the present appeal, it would be expedient to refer to the provision of Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act provides as under:-
"Section 14 : Protection of tenant against eviction - (1) Not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant.RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 23 of 36
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more grounds only.
Section 14 (1) (a) : that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the day on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served of him by the landlord in the manner provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1881 (4 of 1882).
Section 14 (1) (c) : that the tenant has used the premises for a purpose other than that for which they were let--(i) if the premises have been let on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord; or (ii) if the premises have been let before the said date without obtaining his consent;"
47. The foundation to the applicability of Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act is existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that in order to succeed in an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act, the petitioner is required to prove the following ingredients: -
"(i) that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
(ii) Rate of rent;
(iii) that there were arrears of legally recoverable rent at the time of issuance of legal demand notice;
(iv) that a valid legal demand notice was duly served upon the respondent; and
(v) that the respondent has neither paid nor tendered the entire arrears of legally recoverable rent within two months of date of receipt of legal demand notice."RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 24 of 36
(i) RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT AND (ii) RATE OF RENT
48. The core to the applicability of Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act is relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties.
The term 'Landlord' is defined by Section 2 (e) of the DRC Act to mean "a person who, for the time being is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, any or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent,if the premises were let to a tenant."
49. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, reverting back to the present appeal, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no dispute with regard to the tenanted premises by the appellant/tenant. In the petition filed by the respondent/landlord before the Ld. ARC and the detailed amended Written Statement filed by the respondent/tenant, there is no dispute of landlord and tenant relationship and the tenanted premises. However, in para No.11 of the petition, landlord state that the monthly rent of tenanted premises is Rs. 2,000/- exclusive of water and electricity charges and same has to be shared in equal proportion by the respondent and the tenant of Flat No. 47E/JC Pocket, IInd Floor. The appellant/tenant in the amended Written Statement specifically in reply to para No.11 of the Eviction petition denied these facts and stated that the rate of rent is Rs.1800/- per month which is indivisible and inclusive of charges for usage of electricity, water, etc. The appellant/tenant also relied on the written lease agreement entered on 03.08.2009 between the parties. It is pertinent to mention here that in the petition, the respondent/landlord stated in para No.14 that the RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 25 of 36 tenanted premises was given on rent on 25.10.2005 to the appellant/ tenant and no agreement in writing was entered into between them.
50. In the amended Written Statement in reply to para No. 14 of the petition, the appellant/tenant has taken the plea that the tenanted premises initially taken on lease on 25.10.2005 but the said lease was determined on 01.10.2006 by surrender and the legal possession vested in the landlord from 01.10.2006. There was no contract of tenancy at all between the period 01.10.2006 till 24.05.2009 and no tenant - landlord relationship existed between the present parties and there was no intention to create lease. The present tenancy was created on 25.04.2009 by way of a fresh lease agreement entered upon on 03.08.2009 and the same is governed by written tenancy terms.
51. As per pleadings, now the dispute is with regard to the facts as follows :-
(a) Whether the parties entered into written rent
agreement dated 03.08.2009?
(b) Whether the monthly rent is Rs.2,000/-
exclusive of water and electricity charges or
Rs. 1,800/- inclusive of water and electricity
charges?
52. The appellant/tenant has taken the plea that the tenancy is governed by written rent agreement dated 03.08.2009. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the appellant/tenant. As per Trial Court Record, RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 26 of 36 the appellant/tenant herself entered into the witness box and proved her affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and relied on photocopy of lease agreement Mark 'A'. In the detailed cross-examination, specific question was put to the appellant/tenant that, whether she can identify the lease agreement in the Court record, then put a question on the lease agreement Mark 'A' as to whether she can identify or read the license number of Notary Public in the seal of the Notary Public, she admitted that she could not see any license number. Thereafter, it was again asked that it is a fake seal of Notary Public created by her but she denied.
53. As per Court record, the photocopy of alleged lease agreement Mark 'A' was filed by the appellant/tenant. The alleged rent agreement was purported to be purchased as per stamp affixed on the same on 23.05.2009 from Janakpuri Sub-Registrar Office. However, it does not mention the purpose of purchase and it only bears the name of KVSN Raju. As per first line of the said agreement, it is mentioned that the agreement was executed on 03.08.2009 and as per Clause 1 of the said agreement Mark 'A', this agreement shall commence from 20.11.2009 only. The Notary Public stamp bears the name of one Surender Kumar, Notary Public, Delhi. The alleged lease agreement is signed in the presence of two witnesses, one namely Ravinder Kumar @ Chaudhary, Village Mangar, P.O. Dhauj, Faridabad and the second witness is Bittoo with the address of c/o. Mother Diary, New Delhi- 110064. The father name of the first witness is missing and no proper house number is mentioned. The father name of the second witness is also missing and the alleged address cannot be believable as c/o.
RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 27 of 36Mother Diary, New Delhi-110064. The appellant/tenant further in order to prove as per law this agreement would have summoned Notary Public or any of the witnesses. A prudent landlord cannot cite any witness in a rent agreement where complete addresses are missing and complete particulars especially the father's name is missing.
54. The agreement paper was purchased on 23.05.2009 and after about five months, the alleged agreement was executed on 03.08.2009 and surprisingly, the tenancy is stated to commence from 20.11.2009 only. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the alleged rent agreement Mark 'A', the tenancy commenced w.e.f. 20.11.2009 and there is no plausible explanation given by the appellant/tenant when the document was purchased on 23.05.2009, then why the document was executed on 03.08.2009 and why the tenancy commenced from 20.11.2009. Therefore, the Ld. Trial Court came to the legally correct conclusion that there is no legal rent agreement or lease agreement proved on record by the appellant/tenant and therefore, Mark 'A' is not a legally proved documents and thus, it cannot be read and relied in evidence. Consequently, the contents and conditions relied by the appellant/tenant are not legal terms and conditions of the alleged rent agreement Mark 'A' and therefore, the appellant/tenant miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof that a written lease agreement dated 03.08.2009 Mark 'A' was entered between the parties and the tenancy is governed by the said agreement. In my considered opinion, the alleged rent agreement Mark 'A' dated 03.08.2009 has no evidenciary value in the eyes of law.
RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 28 of 3655. Now, in view of finding on alleged lease agreement Mark 'A', the rate of rent is also not proved by the appellant/tenant to be Rs.1,800/- per month inclusive of water and electricity charges as alleged in the said lease agreement Mark 'A' dated 03.08.2009. Therefore, Ld. ARC legally and correctly came to the conclusion that there was no written legal agreement between the parties and the rate of monthly rent was Rs. 2,000/- per month exclusive of water and electricity charges.
(iv) SERVICE OF LEGAL DEMAND NOTICE :-
56. In the petition, the respondent/landlord in para No. 18 (b) mentioned that the legal notice dated 24.04.2010 was served upon the respondent but she did not reply and copy of notice filed on record. As per amended Written Statement of the appellant/tenant, in the relevant para, she denied the service of legal notice dated 24.04.2010 Ex. P-2 prior to the filing of the Eviction petition. It is stated that the registered AD covers sent by postal receipt No. RL AD A173 dated 26.04.2010 and another envelope sent by Courier vide receipt No. Z12087050 of DTDC Courier were returned back to the sender as the address of the addressee in both the envelopes are incomplete and incorrect and could not be served. It is further stated that the notice came to the knowledge of the appellant/tenant for the first time on 17.01.2015.
57. The petitioner/landlord appeared in the witness box and during his cross-examination, in reply to a specific question with regard to rate of rent, he has specifically stated that the rate of rent was RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 29 of 36 Rs.2,000/- per month excluding water and electricity charges. The appellant/tenant put another question to the respondent/landlord that he has concealed material fact from the eyes of the Court that the AD post vide registration slip No. RLADA-173 Ex. PW-1/5 and DTDC Courier receipt No. Z12087050 Ex. PW-1/6 vide which the legal notice was allegedly sent by him was served upon her, is false and the same is denied by the landlord. The appellant/tenant put another question to the respondent/landlord that the said registered AD as well as the Courier vide which the envelopes were sent contained one and the same address and the same is admitted by the landlord. The respondent/landlord has denied the suggestion of the appellant/tenant that he has not sent any legal notice to her.
58. Now, coming to the evidence led by the appellant/tenant when she appeared in the witness box, the Ld. Trial Court in the detailed judgment in para No. 13 thereof reproduced the relevant portion of cross-examination of the appellant/tenant as RW-1 in respect of the legal notice dated 24.04.2010 which was sent to the appellant/tenant and for the sake of brevity, the same portion is not reproduced here. However, as per record and after going through the cross-examination of the appellant/tenant, the Ld. ARC came to the correct and legal conclusion that the legal demand notice dated 24.04.2010 was sent and the respondent/landlord proved the postal receipt Ex. PW-1/5 and courier receipt Ex.PW-1/6 as per law.
RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 30 of 3659. The Ld. ARC also discussed in detail the judgment of M/s. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah in SLP (Crl.) No. 8783 of 2013 decided on 16.07.2014 on this legal issue of service of legal notice. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 27 of the General Clauses Act was also reproduced by the Ld. ARC in the detailed impugned judgment whereby a presumption has been raised which is not rebutted by the appellant/tenant with regard to service of legal demand notice dated 24.04.2010. It is also pertinent to mention here that the appellant/tenant vehemently argued that the address for sending of the legal notice is governed by lease agreement dated 03.08.2009 Mark 'A' as per Clause 15 thereof. It is also pertinent mention here that as hereinabove, it has been held that the alleged written rent agreement dated 03.08.2009 Mark 'A' is not a legal document in the eyes of law and it is not proved as per law, therefore, the Clause 15 of the rent agreement Mark 'A' has no role to play. In my considered opinion, the Ld. Trial Court legally and correctly came to the conclusion that the respondent/landlord has served a legal demand notice upon the appellant/tenant prior to the filing of the Eviction petition.
(iii) NON-PAYMENT OF RENT / ARREARS OF RENT AND (v) TENDER OF LEGALLY RECOVERABLE ARREARS OF RENT:-
60. The Ld. Trial Court after discussing the respective factual stand in the petition and in the amended written statement and also perusing the material available on record specifically discussing the relevant portion of respondent's evidence in para No. 16 with regard to RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 31 of 36 the arrears of rent which are legally recoverable and whether entire arrears of legally recoverable rent are tendered within two months or not. The respondent / landlord in the para No. 18(a) of the petition has taken the ground of Eviction and stated that the appellant/tenant is a habitual defaulter / irregular in making payment of monthly rent, which has to be paid or tendered on or before 10 th day of each English calender month and payment towards water and electricity charges despite continuous and repeated demands. The appellant/tenant has neither paid the aforesaid rent from August, 2009 nor has she paid her share / dues towards electricity charges from the mid of March, 2008 onwards and water charges from June, 2009 onwards. The appellant/ tenant is stated to be in arrears of rent of Rs. 24,000/- w.e.f. August, 2009 @ Rs. 2,000/- per month till July, 2010. The appellant / tenant is further in arrears of Rs.11,103/- towards dues of electricity w.e.f. mid of March, 2008 to 22.04.2010 and approx. Rs. 750/- towards water charges from June, 2009 till the date of filing of the eviction petition.
61. It is stated that a legal demand notice dated 24.04.2010 and termination of tenancy has already been sent to the appellant/tenant. It is pertinent to mention here that in the legal notice dated 24.04.2010 Mark P-2, the arrears of rent was claimed w.e.f. August, 2009 @ Rs.2,000/- per month till the date of legal notice. In the detailed amended written statement in para No. 18(1)(i), the appellant / tenant denied all the facts mentioned with regard to arrears of rent, electricity and water charges. The appellant / tenant relied on alleged written rent agreement dated 03.08.2009. It is stated that the RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 32 of 36 appellant / tenant had paid Rs.43,200/- towards the advance rent for a duration of 18 months @ Rs. 1,800/- per month which is to be adjusted in accordance with the written lease agreement dated 03.08.2009 Mark 'A'. It is further stated that as per the alleged written agreement, it was agreed that till the time the essential supply / amenities, water and electricity are restored and whenever there is a disconnection of the said amenities at the tenanted premises, the rent shall abate for that duration or remain suspended. It is further stated that it is clear and unambiguous as per the alleged lease agreement entered into between the parties on 03.08.2009, the advance of Rs. 43,200/- and Rs.27,000/- as expenditure by tenant at the tenanted premises are also adjustable against the rent payable besides interest @ 10% per annum accrued on Rs. 1,49,000/- which was received by the respondent/landlord from the appellant/tenant for doing the improvements in the tenanted premises.
62. The respondent / landlord appeared in the witness box and tendered his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and reiterated the facts as mentioned with regard to the arrears of rent in the petition. In the detailed cross- examination, a specific question put to the landlord PW-1 KVSN Raju that at the request and on demand, rent @ Rs. 1,800/- per month from August, 2009 was made from advance rent of Rs. 43,200/-. The respondent / landlord specifically denied that he has not taken any advance and reiterated that the tenant is in arrears of rent from August, 2009 onwards till date. He again reiterated to a similar question that the tenant is in arrears of rent since 2009. The landlord denied the RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 33 of 36 suggestion that he is getting the rent deducted from the advance of Rs.43,200/- regularly since 2009. The main burden of proof lies on the appellant/tenant to prove that she tendered advance of Rs. 43,200/- and besides interest @ 10% per annum accrued on Rs. 1,49,000/-. The appellant appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and relied on Ex. RW-1/4, a certified copy of receipt dated 03.08.2009 Ex. PW-1/27 and Ex. RW-1/6 dated 28.01.2010 purported to be friendly loan account and tenancy rent and purported to be signed by the landlord KVSN Raju and Mark 'B' a typed receipt dated 25.04.2009. The objections raised with regard to the exhibiting and proving the documents as they were filed in a suit filed by the appellant / tenant against the respondent / landlord before the Ld. ADJ for recovery of Rs. 5,05,807/-. In the detailed cross-examination, the appellant/tenant in reply to a specific question stated as under :-
"Que: I put to you that one you came in the tenanted premises in November, 2005, you never left that premises and continuing there since November, 2005 till date. What do you say?
Ans: It is wrong to say so.
I do not remember where I was living prior to November 2005.
I paid Rs. 43,200/- on 04.07.2009 vide receipt dated 03.08.2009 for a period 24months w.e.f. August, 2009 to July, 2011, which is already placed on record. I had also paid Rs. 27,000/- against various repairs in the tenanted premises which was to be deducted against the rent payable after July, 2011 as per the Lease Agreement relied. With regard to the present rent, the same is being deducted by the landlord against receipt dated 06.10.2013. The rate of rent was/is Rs. 1,800/- per month which was inclusive of electricity and water consumption charges.RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 34 of 36
The last rent by way of cash was paid on 04.07.2009 and rest of the rent are getting adjusted. It is wrong to suggest that I did not pay rent vide receipt dated 06.10.2013. (Vol. Its pertains to the present period)."
63. It is pertinent to mention here that hereinabove it is held that the lease agreement dated 03.08.2009 Mark 'A' has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law and therefore, any alleged transaction based in the said agreement is not proved as per law and has no legal sanctity and cannot be treated as a legal evidence. The appellant relied on the certified copies of the documents i.e. Ex. RW-1/4, Ex.RW- 1/6 and Mark 'B' filed before the Ld. ADJ, which are secondary evidence and substantive issue is with regard to establishing that the appellant / tenant has paid arrears of rent has to be proved as primary evidence as per Indian Evidence Act that the receipts dated 03.08.2009, 28.01.2010 and 25.04.2009 are mandatory to be proved on the basis of original documents. It is pertinent to mention here that the said documents were not put during the cross-examination of the respondent/landlord. Therefore, the appellant/tenant has failed to prove the said documents Ex. RW-1/4, Ex.RW-1/6 and Mark 'B' and thus, they cannot be read and relied as they are not proved on record.
64. The Ld. Trial Court relied on the impugned judgment under the heading 'Non-payment of Rent' discussed in detail and reproduced the relevant portion of evidence of tenant / RW-1 and legally and correctly appreciate. The Ld. Trial Court also reproduced in verbatim the order dated 20.09.2019 of the Hon'ble High Court. The Ld. Trial Court further legally and correctly applied the directions of the Hon'ble RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 35 of 36 High Court in the present facts and circumstances of the case. It is specifically observed that the documents Mark 'A' and Mark 'B' i.e. the lease agreement dated 03.08.2009 and receipt dated 25.04.2009 were filed at the time of evidence and no application under Order 8 Rule 1A CPC was filed for placing these documents on record. All the observations and conclusions drawn by the Ld. Trial Court is legal and correct and in no manner perverse. The respondent/landlord as per material gone through the Ld. Trial Court especially the pleadings and evidence led by the landlord establish that the appellant/tenant is in arrears of rent. On the other hand, the appellant/tenant failed to discharge the burden that the advance rent paid by her was adjustable. The lease agreement Mark 'A' and receipt Mark 'B' are not reliable as observed hereinabove.
65. On the basis of above observation and discussion, I find no illegality, infirmity or incorrect approach adopted by the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2019. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
66. Trial Court record along-with copy of this judgment be sent back. File of appeal be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (SANJAY KUMAR)
on 14th December, 2022 Principal District & Sessions Judge /
RCT (West) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
RCT No.01/20 Balasaraswasthy vs. KVSN Raju Page 36 of 36