Delhi District Court
Smt. Rekha Satija vs M/S Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar on 2 January, 2016
In the Court of Shri Naresh Kumar Laka
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller
District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
E. No. 218/2009
Unique ID No. 02402C0258732009
Smt. Rekha Satija
W/o Sh. Sachin Satija
R/o F-2, Radheypuri,
School Lane, Delhi 110051
.....Petitioner
Versus
M/s Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar
Through its Partner/P.O.
Ground floor, C-1/9, Krishna Nagar,
Lal Quarters, Delhi 110051
....Respondent
Date of institution of petition : 03.09.2009
Judgment reserved on : 07.12.2015
Judgment announced on : 02.01.2016
Final Order : Petition allowed
Application/Petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts: The present petition has been filed seeking eviction of one shop situated in property No.C1/9, Krishna Nagar, Delhi (as shown in site plan attached with the petition) under E No. :218/2009 Page No. 1 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [in short, "the Act"] on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from April, 2009 onwards at the rate of Rs.740 per month and in this regard it is claimed that a demand notice dated 11.05.2009 was also sent to the respondent but despite service of the said notice, the respondent did not pay the rent.
Written Statement
2. The respondent contested this case and filed his written statement stating therein that there are two shops bearing no.4 and 5 at the ground floor and not one as claimed by the petitioner. It is further stated that there is no relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant and in fact one Smt. Amrita Tandon is the landlord of the premises in question and the respondent earlier used to pay rent to Sh. Subhash Chander Tandon, erstwhile owner and after 2008-2009, the rent was paid to Smt. Amrita Tandon, the second wife of said Sh. Subhash Chander Tandon. It is also claimed that there is no default on the part of the tenant and the present case is baseless. The respondent also alleged that the rent of the premises is Rs.330 snf 485/- pm respectively for two shops and not Rs.740 pm as alleged.
3. The petitioner filed replication to the written statement of the respondent whereby the allegations of the respondent were controverted and the stands taken in the petition were E No. :218/2009 Page No. 2 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar reiterated. The petitioner also disclosed that she is the owner of the premises in question on the basis of relinquishment deed executed by Sh. Subhash Chander Tandon on 20.04.2009 and she is holding 86.33% undivided share in the entire premises where the shops in question are situated.
4. In order to prove her case, the petitioner examined herself as PW1. The respondent also examined Shri Ashwani Kumar as RW1. No other witness was examined by either parties. Both the parties also rely on various documents but for the sake of brevity, they are not reproduced herein but the relevant documents will be referred to in the subsequent paragraphs by their description and exhibit mark wherever required.
5. I have heard Sh. Siddharth Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. File perused.
REASONS FOR DECISION
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following points emerged which require determination of this court:
1)Identify of the status of respondent
2)Question of ownership of the petitioner and relationship between the parties as landlord and E No. :218/2009 Page No. 3 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar tenant
3) Identification of property in question
4) Service of legal notice
5) Existence of arrears of rent and rate of rent.
(1) Identify of the status of respondent
7. It is the admitted case of the parties that the shops in question were owned initially by Shri Satender Singh and the respondent was inducted as tenant. But there is a dispute on the point of name of respondent and their capacity. The respondent claimed that Ashwani Kumar and Parvesh Kumar are two different individual tenants and the present is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. In the replication, it is stated that the respondent is a joint tenant and not separate one because single rent receipts were used to be issued. In the cross-examination, the RW1 admitted that he and his brother Shri Parvesh Kumar works together in the shops in question. He also claimed that he and his brother are the proprietors of M/s. Ashwani Kumar Parvesh Kumar and at time he and sometimes his brother used to pay rent.
8. On specific court questions, the RW1 admitted that he and his brother are the joint tenants in the shops in question and they also pay rents jointly for both the shops. From the aforesaid evidence, I hold that the respondent is one single tenant in in two E No. :218/2009 Page No. 4 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar shops in question and both the brothers are its joint tenants. As regards non-joinder of necessary party, as claimed by respondent, it is clear that the summons of this case were received by Shri Ashwani Kumar and his brother Parvesh did not file any application for impleading as a party if he had any other interest in the shops in question than the interest of his brother. Moreover, the RW1 also admitted in his cross-examination that he has been authorised orally by Shri Pravesh Kumar to represent this case as the tenancy is joint. Thus I hold that the tenancy is jointly possessed by both Ashwani Kumar and Pravesh Kumar in respect of two shops in question.
(2) Question of ownership of the petitioner and relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant
9. A sale deed dated 19.12.88 is on record and as per the said sale deed, admittedly the entire property where shops in question are situated was purchased by Sh. Subhash Chander Tandon and his wife Smt. Darshana. It is the plea of the respondent that Sh. Subhash Chander Tandon had a second wife, namely, Smt. Amrita Tandon in whose favour a registered GPA and registered Will were executed by him and accordingly on the basis of said documents, Smt. Amrita Tandon used to receive rent from the tenant/respondent and she is the landlord.
10. The petitioner denied execution of the said documents as well as marital status of Smt. Amrita Tandon with Sh. Subhash E No. :218/2009 Page No. 5 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar Chander Tandon. On the other hand, petitioner claimed her right in property in question on the basis of a registered relinquishment deed dated 20.04.09.
11. It is further claimed by the respondent that there was a bona fide doubt with regard to the owner/landlord of the property in question, and as such he had filed DR petitions under Section 27 of the Act by impleading (1) Smt. Amrita Tandon and (2) Smt. Rekha Satija (petitioner) as respondents but despite service of the notice of the said petition, no objection has been filed by Smt. Rekha Satija. No doubt, it is clear that no objections were filed by Smt. Rekha Satija but from the orders passed in the said DR petition, it cannot be said that the substantial right of the petitioner were taken away. The said proceedings under Section 27 of the Act were summary in nature and they are not binding.
12. It is pertinent to mention that during the course of trial, Smt. Amrita Tandon had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for her impleadment as a party in the cases (including present one which were filed by Smt. Rekha Satija against the present respondent and other tenants) but the said application was dismissed by my Ld. Predecessor. Anyhow, in order to effectively adjudicate the present case and to crystallize the rights of the parties, the claim of Smt. Amrita Tandon is also kept in mind as far as possible on the admitted and proved facts.
E No. :218/2009 Page No. 6 of 21Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar
13. The respondent placed on record a copy of GPA dated 28.09.07 executed by Shri Subhash Chander Tandon in favour of Smt. Amrita Tandon. The powers/authorities which were given in the said GPA in favour of Smt. Amrita Tandon are as under:
1.To manage, control and supervise the said property in all respect on my behalf & to deposit the dues and demands of Municipal Corporation or any other concerned authority, to obtain receipt etc. on my behalf.
2.To let out the said property in whole or in part, to receive the rent, to issue receipt and to get the tenant/s evicted from the rented portion through the process of law by my said wife SMT. AMRITA TANDON.
3.To appear before the State Electricity Board or any other concerned authority in connection with the installation of light and power, to give any application, statement, file affidavit, undertaking, indemnity bond on my behalf.
4.To appear before the Water Supply Deptt. And Sewage Disposal/Municipal Corporation or any other concerned authority in connection with the water, sewer connection, assessment of house tax or for any other purpose, to given any application, statement, file affidavit, undertaking, indemnity bond and to claim for refund on my behalf.
5.To execute sign and present all kind of suits, plaints, complaints, appeals, revisions, statement etc., in proper court of law and offices in connection with the said property.
6.And I do hereby agree to confirm and ratify that all the acts, deeds and things done by my said attorney shall be E No. :218/2009 Page No. 7 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar construed as acts, deeds and things done by me personally as if I was present.
14. From the aforesaid powers/authorities given by said registered GPA, it is clear that Smt. Amrita Tandon was authorized to collect rent on behalf of Sh. Subhash Chander Tandon but she has not been given any exclusive ownership rights in the property in question. Moreover as mentioned in para no. 2 of the said GPA, it was executed on account of illness of Shri Subhash Chander Tandon. From the plain reading of said GPA, it is clear that Smt. Amrita Tandon was authorized to collect rent and to do all other necessary acts on behalf of Shri Subhash Chander Tandon and the executant of said GPA, namely, Sh.
Subhash Chander Tandon did not divest his rights from the property including the shops in question, which is reflected from the fact that he had authorized his attorney to do the above mentioned authorized acts "on his behalf".
15. Further, it is also evident that there was no consideration amount given by Smt. Amrita Tandon to Sh. Subhash Chander Tandon for executing said GPA nor there was any interest of the attorney/agent existing in the property which was the subject matter of said GPA.
16. Accordingly said GPA can be said to be a document executed by a principal (Shri Subhash Chander Tandon) E No. :218/2009 Page No. 8 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar appointing or authorizing his agent (Smt. Amrita Tandon) to perform certain specified acts on behalf of principal as defined under Section 182 of the Indian Contract Act and the said contract of agency is terminable/revocable as per Section 201 to 203 of the Indian Contract Act which are reproduced as under:
Sec.201. Termination of agency- An agency is terminated by the principal revoking his authority; or by the agent renouncing the business of the agency; or by the business of the agency being completed; or by either the principal or agent dying or becoming of unsound mind; or by the principal being adjudicated an insolvent under the provisions of any Act for the time being in force of the relief of insolvent debtors.
Sec.202. Termination of agency, where agent has an interest in subject-matter- Where the agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject-matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such internet.
Sec.203. When principal may revoke agent's authority- The principal may, save as is otherwise provided by the last preceding section, revoke the authority given to his agent at any time before the authority has been exercised so as to bind the principal.
17. From the perusal of the GPA in question, it is crystal clear that this is a document simplicitor under Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act without creating/having any interest pertaining to the agent in the subject matter which is revocable/terminable at E No. :218/2009 Page No. 9 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar the will of principal. Reliance can be placed on the case of Corporation Bank, Bangalore vs. Lalitha H. Holla, AIR 1994 Kant 133 wherein it was held as under:
"A power of attorney executed in favour of an agent recording or recognizing an interest of the agent/attorney in the property which is the subject matter of the agency, cannot be revoked or terminated, even if the instrument states specifically that it is revocable, as then it would be a power coupled with an interest but a power of attorney simplicitor which merely authorizes an agent to do certain acts in the name of or on behalf of the executant at any time, that power of attorney can be revoked or cancelled by the executant at any time in spite of fact that the instrument states that the power of attorney is irrevocable."
18. For termination or revocation of said authority, even there is no requirement under law to give prior notice and that too in writing. In this regard, reference can be made to the Section 207 of the Indian Contract Act which provides that "Revocation or renunciation may be expressed or may be implied in the conduct of that principal or agent respectively". In this context, the illustration appended to said Section also squarely applies to the present case which states, "A empowers B to let A's house. Afterwards A lets it himself. This is an implied revocation of B's authority.
19. Thus the GPA in question can remain in force till it was E No. :218/2009 Page No. 10 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar revoked or cancelled or either party died, became of unsound mind or insolvent, etc. When Sh. Subhash Chander Tandon registered the relinquishment deed in favour of her daughter, namely, Smt. Rekha Satija on 20.04.09, it impliedly revoked the GPA dated 20.09.07 in terms of Section 207 of Indian Contract Act.
20. As far as Will executed in favour of Smt. Amrita Tandon is concerned, it is the settled law that the Will comes into force only after the death of testator and when Sh. Subhash Chander Tandon had already executed registered relinquishment deed in favour of her daughter Smt. Rekha Satija thereby releasing his right in the property in question during his lifetime, the Will became redundant so far as the property released is concerned. In other words, Smt. Amrita Tandon has left with no right on the basis of said Will.
21. In the light of aforesaid legal position and the evidence on record, I hold that as far as relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant is concerned, although there was no relationship between Smt. Amrita Tandon and respondent but there was an express authority vested in favour of Smt. Amrita Tandon by way of registered GPA dated 28.09.07 to collect rent from the tenant/respondent. So she can be said to be a collector of rent till the time the said authority was in force. But when the principal donor executed registered relinquishment deed dated E No. :218/2009 Page No. 11 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar 20.04.09, the said authority/GPA stands revoked by the subsequent act/conduct of the principal, namely, Shri Subhash Tandon and from the said date i.e. 20.04.2009, Smt. Rekha Satija became one of the co-owners/landladies of the property in question qua the respondent/tenant along with other relinquishee, namely, Babita.
22. Accordingly I hold that the respondent was within his right to pay rent to Smt. Amrita Tandon till 20.04.2009 and after execution of relinquishment deed dated 20.04.09, the power and authority of Smt. Amrita Tandon as an agent/attorney came to an end. The GPA simplicitor can be terminated at any time but it is not a case of either party that the said GPA was cancelled or revoked by Shri Subhash Chander Tandon before execution of relinquishment deed nor it is claimed/proved that the said fact of recovation was brought to the notice of tenant/respondent. Accordingly, the tenant will have a protection about payment of rent made to Smt. Amrita Tandon as per Section 208 of the Indian Contract Act which provides that, "The termination of the authority of an agent does not, so far as regards the agent, take effect before it becomes known to him, or so far as regards third persons, before it becomes known to them." Similarly, the Section 50 of the Transfer of Property Act also protects a tenant who gives rent under bona fide belief to a person under defective title and it is the matter of examination whether the respondent has given rent to Smt. Amrita Tandon under such E No. :218/2009 Page No. 12 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar bona fide belief or not. This will be examined in the subsequent paragraphs.
23. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the present petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as the other co-owner, namely, Ms. Babita has not been impleaded in this case. The said argument is not acceptable in law since it is a settled position of law that even a single co-owner can file an eviction petition and the disputes, if any, between the co-owners cannot absolve a tenant from his liability to pay rent and consequently from facing eviction on account of non-payment of rent.
24. It is further argued by the counsel for the respondent that a property cannot be transferred by way of relinquishment deed since no such document has been recognized in the Transfer of Property Act. In the case of Satyabadi v. Harabati 34 Cal 223 and Jatindra vs. Rangpur Tobacco Co. AIR 1924 Cal 990, it was held that the Transfer of Property of Act is not an exhaustive code. Thus in my opinion it is not necessary that the transfer of title or interest in the immovable property can be done under the mode recognized in the Transfer of Property Act only.
25. In my opinion there are other modes of transfer also, e.g. by way of succession, inheritance, creation of easement rights, etc. Even the Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, E No. :218/2009 Page No. 13 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar 1908 provides compulsory registration of a non-testamentary instrument which purports to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future any right, title or interest in an immovable property. Thus by reading the said Section as a whole, I hold that a release of a right through registered relinquishment deed In question (which is a registered document having proper execution and attestation of witnesses) is a valid way of transfer of a right in an immovable property. The counsel for the respondent also did not show any case law contrary thereto. Thus the said argument is not tenable in law and thus rejected.
(3) Identification of property in question
26. In the written statement, a plea has been taken that the petitioner has not specifically claimed as to which portion belongs to her and thus it is argued that the shops in question do not belong to the petitioner especially when she is allegedly the owner of 88.33% share of the entire property. From the evidence came on record, it is evident that petitioner as well as her sister Babita are the joint owners of the entire building where the shops in question are situated. When no partition has taken place in the said property, the said property can be said to be a single unit and both the aforesaid joint owners will have all undivided right over the entire property. The shops in question have been clearly shown by name of the tenants in the site plan filed on record.
E No. :218/2009 Page No. 14 of 21Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar The respondent/RW1 admitted in his cross-examination that the shops in question have been correctly shown in the site plan filed on record by the petitioner. Accordingly, the aforesaid plea is not sustainable in law and thus rejected.
(4) Service of legal notice
27. The counsel for the respondent argued that the letter of attornment or information about change of ownership have not been served and secondly it was required to be sent by the previous owner Shri Subhash Tandon and not by petitioner and thus it is stressed that the letter of attornment sent by petitioner is not a valid notice. The proviso appended to Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act contemplates that before a tenant can be made liable to pay rent to the transferee he must have knowledge of the transfer either through the lessor or by his transferee by a notice. Thus the argument that notice was requirement to be served by lessor is not tenable in law but it is required to be examined whether the said notice was properly served upon respondent or not along with the demand notice.
28. In order to seek eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, it is also mandatory for the petitioner/landlord to serve a demand notice to the tenant. In the instant case, the petitioner claimed that she has served a demand notice dated 11.05.2009 Ex.PW1/D (dated 19.05.2009 as per postal receipt Ex.PW1/E) on record) claiming arrears of rent from the respondent but the E No. :218/2009 Page No. 15 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar respondent denied service of the same.
29. From the perusal of the file, it is clear that the petitioner has placed on record the said demand notice and its postal receipt. The respondent/RW1 has not disputed that the address mentioned in the said notice is not correct but he simply denied its service. There is a presumption of law about due service of a letter/notice dispatched to a correct address under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. The said presumption is rebuttable in law but the onus is upon the person who denies its service. The respondent did not discharge such onus as no witness from the postal department has been examined by him nor he proved that he was not residing at the given address on or near the date of service of said demand notice. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner proved on record the service of said demand notice upon the respondent as per law.
30. It is seen that before sending the demand notice, the petitioner had also sent an intimation letter/notice dated 22/23.04.2009 (Ex. PW1/B). From the postal receipt dated 24.04.2009 (Ex.PW1/G) placed on record and the circumstances and reasoning as explained above, I hold the petitioner duly proved the valid service of the said letter of attornment upon the respondent.
(5) Existence of arrears of rent and rate of rent E No. :218/2009 Page No. 16 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar
31. The petitioner claimed arrears of rent w.e.f. April, 2009 onwards at the rate Rs. 740/- pm. However, as per the respondent, the rate of rent is Rs.330/- and Rs.485 pm respectively for two shops in question and as per him he had already paid the rent till November 2009 to Shri Subhash Tandon and Smt. Amrita Tandon and in this regard the respondent has also placed on record a few rent receipts. The petitioner simply alleged that the said rent receipts are forged documents but in this regard no evidence has been led. On the other hand, in his cross-examination, the respondent claimed that the said rent receipts were issued by the previous owners, namely, Satender Singh, Subhash Tandon and lastly by Amrita Tandon.
32. In her cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that she cannot say as to what is the actual rate of rent but she simply told that the name of tenant and his rate has been written in a letter/memorandum written by her father. But again she said that she does not know if the said letter has been placed on record or not. No such letter has been even proved on record during evidence of the petitioner and it was only in the cross- examination of respondent that a memorandum Mark X was confronted to the respondent but he denied to identify its handwriting. The petitioner has also not placed on record any other documentary evidence in the form of counter-foil of previous rent receipts, books of account, ITRs or any register maintained in the ordinary course of business having entries of E No. :218/2009 Page No. 17 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar rent with respect to tenant in question especially when the previous owner Shri Subhash Tandon was keeping so many tenants. Accordingly in the absence of leading any evidence to prove the rate of rent by the petitioner, I hold that the respondent succeeded in proving the rate of rent as Rs.330/- and Rs.485 pm respectively for two shops in question which is also supported by rent receipts placed on record by the respondent.
33. When Smt Amrita Tandon was holding a registered GPA empowering her to receive rent, I am of the opinion that the respondent/tenant was within his right to pay rent to her but it is required to be examined whether rent has been paid to her or not. In the written statement, it is claimed by the respondent that he had paid all due amount to Smt. Amrita Tandon or Subhash Tandon but the said averment cannot simplicitor be accepted as true unless proved on record by way of documentary or oral evidence. Respondent claimed to have paid the due rent by way of rent receipts but it is seen that the said three rent receipts placed on record by the respondent are for the period of May 1987 (Ex.RW1/P8), May, 1989 (Ex.RW1/P7), 01.10.1995 to 31.10.1995 - one shop (Ex.RW1/P6), 01.10.1995 to 31.10.1995
- second shop (Ex.RW1/P5), January, 2009 (Ex.RW1/P4) January, 2009 (Ex.RW1/P3), November, 2009 (Ex.RW1/P2) and November, 2009 (Ex.RW1/P1). But the rent in question is for the period from April to May, 2009. In his cross-examination, the respondent admitted that "Earlier he used to receive rent from E No. :218/2009 Page No. 18 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar Shri Subhash Tandon and subsequently Shri Subhash Tandon got introduced Smt. Amrita Tandon and thereafter she used to give rent receipts." It is nowhere the case of the respondent that he had paid rent for the demanded period but no rent receipts were issued to him. He has not even filed any application under Section 26 of the Act demanding issuance of rent receipts from the landlord. Therefore, on account of lack of documentary evidence (especially in the absence of rent receipts for the period in question) the claim of the respondent is not believable and thus not proved.
34. Now, turning to the oral testimony of the respondent, it is seen that he did not specify in the entire cross-examination as to whom he had paid rent and he has not even replied specifically the other crucial questions. The relevant cross- examination is reproduced as under:
"I do not remember as to whom I had paid rent in the month April, 2009. I do not know whether I have filed any receipt/proof towards payment of rent for the month of April, 2009 and May, 2009. I cannot say whether I have paid the rent in the said period or not since I do not remember. I do not remember whether I have paid the said rent within two months of sending of alleged legal notice or not."
35. From the aforesaid oral testimony of respondent, it is evident that the respondent has shown complete ignorance on E No. :218/2009 Page No. 19 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar the point of payment of rent of the period in question, the person to whom paid, the time when it was paid, etc. which are very material facts and go to the root of case.
36. The Section 208 of the Indian Contract Act, Section 50 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 109 of the Indian Evidence Act, give a protection to the tenant if he had paid rent to the agent/representative of landlord but when the tenant/respondent did not even endorse or tell whether he had paid rent to any such agent or landlord, then the pleas of the respondents are not proved. Conversely I hold that the respondent defaulted in payment of rent for the period in question i.e. April and May, 2009 to the landlord or his/her agent.
Conclusion
37. In the light of aforesaid findings, I hold that the petitioner succeeded in establishing her status of ownership as well as relationship between the parties as owner-cum-landlady and tenant w.e.f. 22.04.2009 (date of attornment letter) as well as the existence of arrears of rent of the period in question i.e. April to May, 2009 at the rate of Rs.330/- and Rs.485 pm for two shops in question. Resultantly the present petition is allowed.
38. As per Section 15(1) of the Act, the respondent is directed to pay/deposit/tender the aforesaid defaulted amount of rent along with interest @ 15% p.a. to the petitioner within 30 E No. :218/2009 Page No. 20 of 21 Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar days.
39. Put up compliance of payment of aforesaid defaulted rent, for holding an inquiry with regard to payment of rent w.e.f. June, 2009 till date and for arguments/consideration on the point of giving of benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act on 18.02.2016.
Announced in the open court on 02.01.2016 (Naresh Kumar Laka) Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts,Delhi.
E No. :218/2009 Page No. 21 of 21Rekha Satija vs. M/s. Ashwani Kumar Pravesh Kumar