Delhi District Court
Anita Gupta vs Sarita Jain on 29 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MR. SANJAY GARG-I
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCT No.13/2024
CNR No. DLCT01-005070-2024
Smt. Anita Gupta,
D/o Late Sh. Rajendra Prasad Gupta,
R/o Building No.100, Second Floor,
Achleshwar Vihar Colony,
Behind Ice Factory,
Gwalior-474002. ...........Appellant
Versus
Sarita Jain
W/o Ashok Jain,
5548/25, Basti Harphool Singh,
Sadar Thana Road,
Delhi-110006.
Also at:-
5592, Basti Harphool Singh,
Sadar Thanka Road,
Delhi-110006. .......... Respondent
Date of filing of appeal : 06.04.2024
Date of arguments : 09.07.2024
Date of Judgment : 29.07.2024
JUDGMENT
1. This Judgment shall decide an appeal filed under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended up to RCT-13/2024 Anita Gupta Vs Sarita Jain Page 1 of 10 date, (hereinafter referred as "the DRC Act") whereby the appellant/owner has assailed the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 passed by Ld. CCJ-cum-ARC, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby respondent/tenant was granted one opportunity to deposit the amount at the interest @ 15% on the arrears of rent from 01.01.2018 till 24.02.2023 within 30 days from 20.02.2024.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the appellant that the eviction petition u/s 14(1)(a) of DRC Act was filed before Ld. Trial Court in respect of one room at ground floor of property bearing no.5548/25 (South), Basti Harphool Singh, Sadar Thana Road, Delhi-110006. Late Sh. Rajender Prasad Gupta was the sole owner and landlord of the property in question and respondent had been a tenant under him since long. Respondent had been paying rent to Sh. Rajendra Prasad Gupta for the said tenanted premises and lastly paid the rent in his life time vide receipt dated 07.07.2017 for the period from January, 2017 to December, 2017. Sh. Rajendra Prasad Gupta had expired on 13.01.2021 leaving behind his wife Smt. Malti Gupta and his daughter Anita Gupta (appellant herein) as his legal heirs. Thereafter, Smt. Malti Gupta has also expired on 16.04.2021. Ms. Anita Gupta (appellant herein and daughter of Late Sh. Rajendra Prasad Gupta) is legally entitled to receive and recover the rent of the said tenanted premises. The respondent has failed to pay or tender the rent with respect to the aforementioned RCT-13/2024 Anita Gupta Vs Sarita Jain Page 2 of 10 tenanted premises and is in arrears of rent since 01.01.2018. Petitioner has repeatedly requested the respondent to pay the arrear rent, however, respondent has not paid the same. Thereafter, appellant had sent legal demand notices dated 06.04.2022 and 23.04.2022 to the respondent to pay arrears of rent since 01.01.2018 alongwith interest @ 15% p.a., however, despite service of notices, the respondent has neither paid nor tendered the rent.
2.1 During the pendency of eviction petition, vide order dated 10.02.2023 the respondent was ordered to pay or deposit the rent with the Court at admitted rate from 01.01.2018 till date within one month and shall deposit the rent month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month. Thereafter, the appellant as well as respondent led their evidence by way of affidavit before the Ld. Trial Court. The Ld. Court after considering the evidence, materials placed on record as well as hearing arguments, passed judgment dated 03.08.2023 whereby allowing the eviction petition u/s 14(1)(a) of DRC Act, however, benefit u/s 14(2) of DRC Act was given to the respondent.
2.2 Separate misc. file has been prepared before the Ld. Trial Court for the proceedings u/s 14(2) of DRC Act and after hearing arguments, the Ld.Trial Court has passed the impugned order dated 20.02.2024, whereby respondent/tenant was granted one opportunity and was directed to deposit the amount at the interest @ 15% on the arrears of rent from 01.01.2018 till 24.02.2023 within 30 days from 20.02.2024.
RCT-13/2024 Anita Gupta Vs Sarita Jain Page 3 of 10GROUNDS OF APPEAL
3. The contention raised by the appellant is that the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 10.02.2023 has already given an opportunity to the respondent to deposit arrears of rent within one month from the date of the order and was also directed to deposit the future rent at the same rate by 15 th of each succeeding month and hence, on default the scope of inquiry u/s 14(2) of DRC Act was limited and ought not to have granted further opportunity to the respondent for depositing the defaulted arrears of rent alongwith interest @ 15% vide impugned order dated 20.02.2024 which the respondent/tenant had already defaulted and failed to comply with the order dated 10.02.2023 besides first opportunity to clear the arrears of rent alognwith 15% interest within two months. It is further averred that respondent had committed successive defaults after passing of order dated 10.02.2023. Under the provisions of DRC Act, once tenant commits successive defaults, he loses protection u/s 14(2) of DRC Act as held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is further averred that respondent has not moved any application for condonation of delay for depositing the rent before Ld. ARC, hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. The Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 based on conjectures and surmises, hence, the present petition for setting aside the impugned order.
3.1 Reply to the appeal has been filed by the respondent/tenant.
RCT-13/2024 Anita Gupta Vs Sarita Jain Page 4 of 10ARGUMENTS
4. I have heard Sh.Bharat Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the appellant. Sh. Yashvant Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondent could not appear on the day of argument. However, both the Ld. Counsels for the parties are given liberty to file written arguments. Ld. Counsels for the appellant as well as respondent had filed written submissions.
5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has reiterated the averments made in the appeal and had specifically argued that no application or pleadings has been filed before the Ld. Trial Court to grant further opportunity to deposit the amount at the interest @ 15% on the arrears of rent from 01.01.2018 till 24.02.2023 within 30 days from 20.02.2024. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the cross examination of the respondent before the Ld. Trial Court. It is submitted that respondent had committed successive defaults after passing of order dated 10.02.2023, viz- first default - not complying with the directions of legal notice of demand within two months; second default- not complying with the order dated 10.02.2023 to pay arrears of rent from 01.01.2018 within one month and future rent by 15 th of each succeeding month and successive default- the arrears of rent includes interest 15% as per settled law to which the respondent/tenant defaulted. Under the provisions of DRC Act, once tenant commits successive defaults, he loses protection u/s 14(2) of DRC Act as held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 RCT-13/2024 Anita Gupta Vs Sarita Jain Page 5 of 10 based on conjectures and surmises, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions Ld. Counsel has relied upon judgments viz- B.R. Gupta Vs Pawan Kumar Gupta: 2014 SCC Online DL 6713 and Meena Sharma Vs Rajiv Kumar & Anr.:(2015) 219 DLT 557.
6. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that after receiving the demand notice, the respondent has replied the said notice calling upon the appellant to provide the proof of relationship that she is the daughter of Sh. Rajender Prasad Gupta, previous landlord and also to show the ownership documents of the tenanted premises, but the appellant has failed to do so. Several other persons were also demanding rent of the tenanted premises from the respondent, so the respondent has stopped to pay the monthly rent to anyone after the death of Sh.Rajender Prasad Gupta. Sh.Rajender Prasad Gupta was merely a attorney holder of the owner of the tenanted premises and after the death of executant of attorney and death of attorney holder, no right of inheritance goes to the legal heir of the attorney holder. It is averred that in compliance of order dated 10.02.2023, respondent had deposited the entire outstanding rent at the rate of Rs.711/- per month as ordered by Ld. Trial Court in time on 24.02.2023 and since there was no prayer on the part of the petitioner to pay the interest nor there was any order to pay interest on outstanding rent, therefore, the interest was not paid by the respondent at that time. Respondent is regularly paying the future rent after passing the order dated 10.02.2023 by Ld. Trial Court in the court. It is further averred that respondent has also RCT-13/2024 Anita Gupta Vs Sarita Jain Page 6 of 10 deposited the interest for the period 01.01.2018 to 24.02.2023 as per order dated 20.02.2024 of Ld. Trial Court, but there was a calculation mistake on the part of counsel for respondent, which is a human error for which respondent should not be penalized. There is no default or successive default on the part of the respondent. It is submitted that appellant has pressed for interest on outstanding rent subsequently after passing the abovesaid order although the Ld. Trial Court has no power or jurisdiction to review its order, but the Ld. Trial Court has passed an order 20.02.2024 which is under challenge, therefore, said order is not a final order as per appellant. Hence, it is prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed.
FINDINGS
7. The sole contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that first default in this case should be taken as non compliance of the directions of legal notice of demand and second default is non compliance of the order dated 10.02.2023 to pay arrears of rent from 01.01.2018 within one month and future rent by 15th of each succeeding month. It is stated that the successive default has been committed by the respondent by non payment of interest @ 15% on the arrears of rent as per settled law.
8. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon B.R. Gupta Vs Pawan Kumar Gupta (supra) wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that the order u/s 15(1) of DRC Act is required be complied with by RCT-13/2024 Anita Gupta Vs Sarita Jain Page 7 of 10 the tenant in order to claim protection from eviction under Section 14(2) of the Act. The Controller has the discretion to condone the delay in the deposit of rent by the tenant due to circumstances which are beyond his control and the contention of the tenant is not acceptable that there was condonation of delay when the earlier interim order u/s 15(1) of the Act was modified at the time of passing of the final judgment.
9. In Meena Sharma Vs Shri Rajiv Kumar & Anr.
(supra), Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon para 7 of the judgment. In which the Court has reiterated its earlier judgment in Ram Prakash Tewari Vs Suraj Bhan Yadav: 90 (2001) DLT 236, where in para 28 court has observed as under:-
"28. Section 14 (2) of the Act provides that an order for recovery of possession cannot be passed "if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by Section 15". In other words, a tenant is entitled to claim the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act if he complies with an order passed under Section 15 of the Act. This is clear from a plain reading of Section 14 (2) of the Act. Conversely, and if I may use a cricketing term, a "reverse sweep" of this would mean that if a tenant fails to pay or deposit rent as required by Section 15, an order for recovery of possession can be passed against him."
10. As per the impugned order, two contentions raised by the appellant were decided by the Ld. Trial Court. Firstly, for non payment of the rent for the month of January and secondly, non payment of interest @ 15% on the arrears of rent in compliance of order dated 10.02.2023. Vide order dated 10.02.2023, the Ld. ARC has directed the respondent to deposit rent with the Court, at admitted rate, from 01.01.2018 till date RCT-13/2024 Anita Gupta Vs Sarita Jain Page 8 of 10 within one month from today. Though, there is no order regarding the payment of interest, but I agree with the submission made by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that as per Section 26 of the Act, respondent is required to pay interest @ 15% per annum on the arrears of rent from the date on which the payment of rent fell due.
11. For availing the benefit of the proviso of Section 14(2) of the Act, there should be default in the payment of rent for 3 consecutive months. In this case, admittedly, the default was only for one month. Hence, the Ld. ARC has rightly held respondent to be entitled to protection of Section 14(2) of the Act.
12. The other contention raised on behalf of appellant is that since respondent has not paid the interest @ 15% per annum as per settled law on the arrears of rent, the appellant is entitled to order of eviction against the respondent. The proviso u/s 14(2) of the Act only talks about the default in payment of rent for 3 consecutive months and there is no mention of non payment of interest on the arrears of the rent. The Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed that the appellant/landlord was to raise issue at the relevant time when arrears of rent was deposited without interest @ 15% and got adverse order against the respondent/tenant by striking off the defence, but now he cannot draw any benefit out of it. The Ld. ARC after appreciating the facts of the matter has correctly given one opportunity to the respondent to deposit the rent @ 15% on the arrears of rent within 30 days.
RCT-13/2024 Anita Gupta Vs Sarita Jain Page 9 of 10DECISION
13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I found no substance in the present appeal. The Appeal is thereby dismissed.
14. TCR be sent back with a copy of this order.
15. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY GARG GARG Date: 2024.07.30 15:33:07 +0530 Announced in the open Court (SANJAY GARG-I) th on 29 day of July, 2024 Principal District & Sessions Judge Central District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi(D) RCT-13/2024 Anita Gupta Vs Sarita Jain Page 10 of 10