Delhi District Court
Sh. Sat Pal Vohra vs M/S. Bat Bro Engineering And General on 11 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Ms. ANU MALHOTRA
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE / ARCT (WEST) : DELHI
ARCT102/13
Unique ID No. 02401C0289502012
1. Sh. Sat Pal Vohra
2. Sh. Rajinder Pal Vohra
Both sons of Late Sh. Chunni Lal Vohra
R/o 15, Rose Avenue, Maqbool Road,
Amritsar, Punjab.
At present:
92 D, Mall Road,
Amritsar, Punjab ............ Appellants
Versus
M/s. Bat Bro Engineering and General
Manufacturers,
1/25, Vohra House,
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi ............Respondent
Date of Institution : 02.07.2012
Date of reserving the judgment : 27.03.2014
Date of pronouncement of : 11.07.2014
Judgment
JUDGMENT
This Judgment shall dispose off an appeal instituted on ARCT No. 102/2013 Page 1/9 02.07.2012 by the appellants Shri Sat Pal Vohra, Shri Rajinder Pal Vohra against the respondent M/s Bat Bro Engineering and General Manufacturers whereby the appellants challenged the impugned order dated 31.05.2012 in Eviction Petition No. E68/2008 of the Ld. CCJ cum ARC (Central), Delhi whereby the petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended filed by the appellant as petitioners thereof, on the ground of the respondent having committed default in making a payment of rent for more than 3 months consecutively despite order dated 14.10.2003 in Eviction Petition No. 9/98 in which the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended had already been granted to the respondent and had been filed by the respondent, was dismissed, it having been held that the respondent did not have the complete address of the petitioners and thus due to the same the rent tendered by him was not received by the petitioner and that thus there was no second default on the part of the respondent.
Furthermore vide the said impugned judgment the respondent was directed to tender the rent to the respondent for the period onwards for which he had lastly deposited the rent under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 through demand draft which was directed to be sent through registered posts/speed ARCT No. 102/2013 Page 2/9 posts/courier at the address of the petitioner i.e. appellant herein at 15, Rose Avenue, Maqbool Road, Amritsar, Punjab within a month of the date of the judgment i.e. 31.05.2012 with further directions to the respondent to tender the future rent through only demand draft which the respondent was directed to send through registered post / speed posts / courier at the address of the petitioners i.e. 15, Rose Avenue, Maqbool Road, Amritsar, Punjab on or before every 15th day of each succeeding month and furthermore the petitioners i.e. the appellants herein were directed to inform the change of their address if any to the respondent note a notice within a reasonable time.
Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent who put in appearance and contested the petition. The matter relates to the Central District however vide order dated 28.11.2013 of the Ld. Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, the proceedings of the case have been assigned to this ARCT (West) for disposal in accordance with law and have thus been taken up. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent to put in appearance and contested the appeal.
Written submissions were submitted on behalf of either side by the Ld. counsel i.e. Shri Vinit Kumar for the appellant and Mr. Ashish Partap for the respondent. The records of the Ld. CCJ cum ARC (Central District), Tis Hazari, Delhi have been requisitioned and ARCT No. 102/2013 Page 3/9 perused.
Through the appeal, the contentions raised by the appellants are to the effect that there has been no valid tender for deposit of rent in terms of Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended by the respondents to the appeal despite receipt of notice dated 21.09.2005 and that the cheque bearing No. 199174 dated 28.09.2005 of `18,700/ purportedly the rent w.e.f. April 2004 to August 2005 @1100/ per month deposited directly in the Ld. Court of A.K. Garg, the then ARC Delhi, wherein eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was pending, did not amount to compliance of the provisions of Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended.
It was interalia submitted by the appellants that the non adherence to the provisions of Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended by the appellant had essentially to be read against the appellant.
It was interalia submitted on behalf of the appellant that the said deposit of rent in the proceedings under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended in another eviction petition between the parties, was clearly not valid and that the judgment in Eviction Petition 68/2008 had essentially to be set aside. ARCT No. 102/2013 Page 4/9
Interlia it was submitted by the appellant that there had been a grave miscarrage of justice vide the impugned judgment especially as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and reported in 123 (2005) D.L.T. 127 (S.C.), had not been adhered to.
As regards the observations of the Ld. ARC that the facts in the instant case were distinct from the facts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case Atma Ram Vs. Shakuntala Rani, 123 (2005) Delhi Law Times 127 (SC), it is essential to observe that the facts in the instant case as observed by the then Ld. ARCT vide order dated 28.04.2006 in RCA No. 18/2006 apparently indicate that the facts of the instant case are not distinguishable qua the ratio in Atma Ram Vs. Shakuntala Rani, yet in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 08.10.2009 in RCR No. 79/2006 which was a petition filed by the tenant, liberty to file a petition with respect to the deposit made vide the application under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in the Court of the Additional Rent Controller where the petition under Section 14(1)(b) was pending, was granted and thus the deposit of the rent in the Court of the Additional Rent Controller where the petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was pending would have to be held to have been implicitly condoned.
ARCT No. 102/2013 Page 5/9
Interalia the appellants submitted that the observations of the Ld. CCJ cum ARC (Central) to the effect that the respondent was not aware of the address of the appellant and had been having difficulty each time in sending the rent were erroneous, in as much as the address of the appellants as being 15, Rose Avenue, Maqbool Road, Amritsar, Punjab was mentioned as being the address of the appellants in Eviction Petition No. 61/08 which petition bore previous No. 80/2004 under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and that the respondent had contested that petition and filed a reply thereto dated 25.10.2004 and that even prior to the institution of the Eviction Petition No. 61/08 under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the appellants had served a legal demand notice dated 11.11.2003 placed on the records of Eviction Petition 68/2008 as Ex. PW 1/C in which also the address of the appellant was mentioned as 15 Rose Avenue, Maqbool Road, Amritsar, Punjab and that copy of this notice dated 11.11.2003 was filed by the appellants/ landlords in the Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was exhibited as Ex. PW 1/B and that the Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended was being contested by the respondents herein to the appeal and that the appellants had also served a legal notice dated ARCT No. 102/2013 Page 6/9 30.12.1993 on the respondent in which the address of the appellants was mentioned as 15, Rose Avenue, Maqbool Road, Amritsar, Punjab which notice is exhibited as Ex. PW 1/B in the Eviction Petition No. 9/98 (old No. 26/94 which was allowed vide order dated 14.10.2003 of the Ld. Rent Controller. The appellants had further submitted that the respondent had replied to this notice dated 21.09.2005 vide reply dated 10.10.2005 which notice and reply was stated to be exhibited PW 1/D dated 21.09.2005 and the reply being Ex. PW 1/DA.
ANALYSIS A bare perusal of Ex. PW1/D shows the address of the appellants as mentioned therein as 15, Rose Avenue, Maqbool Road, Amritsar, Punjab and the respondent vide reply of the counsel for the respondent has mentioned the said address as being the address of the appellants vide Ex. PW 1/DA i.e. reply dated 10.10.2005 to this notice.
A perusal of the said notice Ex. PW 1/D and the reply thereto Ex. PW 1/DA which Ex. PW 1/DA was admitted by RW1 Shri G.L. Batra the Proprietor of the respondent as bearing his signatures, makes it apparent on a perusal of the entire available record ARCT No. 102/2013 Page 7/9 with the conjoint reading of Ex. PW 1/C, the legal demand notice dated 11.11.2003 i.e. Ex. PW 2/C placed on the records of the Eviction Petition old No. 61/2008 and new No. 80/2004, under Section 14(1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and as exhibited as Ex. PW 1/B, that the respondent was aware of the address of the appellant as being 15, Rose Avenue, Maqbool Road, Amritsar, Punjab.
In the circumstances, the observations of the Ld. CCJ cum ARC (Central) to the effect that the respondent for want of correct address of the petitioner had been forced to deposit the rent under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended, cannot be accepted.
CONCLUSION In view thereof, it being apparent thus that there has been a consecutive default of three months in payment of the rent in terms of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended, read with Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended, the respondent is directed to be evicted from the tenanted premises comprising of two halls, three baths, two stores on the second floor of the property situated in property No. 1/25, Vohra House, Asaf Ali ARCT No. 102/2013 Page 8/9 Road, New Delhi, as detailed in Ex. PW 1/A as mentioned in Eviction Petition No. 68/08/05. The appeal ARCT No. 102/2013 is thus allowed.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The Records of ARCT No. 102/2013 be consigned to the Record Room and the records of the CCJ cum ARC (West) in Eviction Petition No. 68/08/05 be returned.
Announced in the Open Court (Anu Malhotra)
today this the 11th day of District & Sessions Judge/ ARCT
July, 2014 (West) Delhi
ARCT No. 102/2013 Page 9/9