Delhi District Court
Hatkeshwar Nath Nagar Brahman Mandal ... vs Sanjay on 19 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN, ARC-01,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RC ARC No. 79564/2016
Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Brahman Mandal
1739, Kucha Latoo Shah,
Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006
Through its Authorised Signatory
Sachin Nagar ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Sanjay
S/o. Late Sg. Jagannath
C/0.1739, Kucha Latoo Shah,
Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi - 110006. ....Respondent
Petition u/s 14 (1) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act
1. Date of institution of the case : 25.04.2013
2. Date of Judgment reserved : 25.11.2024
3. Date of Judgment pronounced : 19.12.2024
4. Decision : Petition is dismissed
JUDGMENT
1. The petition in hand has been filed by the petitioner society through its AR seeking eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises, as per provision of Section 14 (1) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act").
PETITION
2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner is a registered society. It is stated that the petitioner society inducted the father of the respondent as a tenant in respect of one shop measuring 16x8 on ground floor in property RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 1 of 18 bearing no. 1739, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as tenanted premises). It is further stated that the premises were let out at a monthly rent of Rs.200/- exclusive of electricity charges and the tenancy begins from from 01 st day of English Calender Month and ends on the last day of month. It is stated that after the death of his father, the respondent became a tenant in the said premises and started paying the rent. However the respondent has failed to pay the rent after March 2005. It is further stated that a legal notice dated 18.12.2009 was also sent to the respondent, however the same remained unserved as the shop was closed and therefore it was affixed by the postal department at the outer gate of the shop. It is further averred that since the premises fall within the slum area, therefore, petitioner also obtained permission from the competent authority vide order dated 18.05.2012. It is pleaded that thereafter petitioner sent a fresh notice dated 13.02.2013 through registered post as well as through speed post at the tenanted premises vide which the tenancy was terminated w.e.f. 31.03.2013 and the respondent was again intimated qua the non payment of rent since March 2005. It is further stated that petitioner additionally demanded arrears of rent amounting to Rs.7200/- with interest @ 15% p.a. w.e.f. 01.03.2010 till 28.02.2023 through the said notice. It is stated that report was received from the postal department that the shop is closed from long time and therefore the notice was returned back.
RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 2 of 18 Hence, the petitioner has sought the eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises u/s 14 (1)(a) DRC Act.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. Summons of this petition were served upon the respondent whereupon he appeared before the court and filed his written statement on 19.10.2013. In the written statement, it is contended by the respondent that no notice of demand has been served upon the respondent. Additionally, it is stated that the respondent is a tenant in premises bearing no. 1738, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi whereas petition has been filed qua premises No. 1739. It is further stated that the AR of the petitioner does not have authority for filing eviction petition qua premises no. 1738 and hence the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed. Further it is contended that permission of the competent authority has not been taken qua premises bearing no. 1738. It is further pleaded that father of the respondent was also tenant in premises bearing no. 1738, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and after his demise the respondent became a tenant in the said premises. Respondent has also filed the rent receipts bearing no. 25, 17 and 531 and pleaded that the same have been issued by the petitioner himself qua premises bearing no. 1738 with respect to the tenancy of his father. Further, it is pleaded that respondent is in occupation of premises bearing no. 1738, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi as a tenant and not in premises bearing no. 1739, Khucha Latoo RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 3 of 18 Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. It is therefore stated that the respondent never received any notice or summons. Further, respondent has specifically denied that he has kept the tenanted premises as locked and averred that in order to forcibly grab the tenanted shop bearing no. 1738, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, petitioner has put a lock over the lock of the respondent qua which a complaint bearing DD No.51B dated 11.07.2013 PS Kotwali has already been filed. It is specifically pleaded that respondent was never a tenant or in occupation of premises bearing no. 1739, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and therefore the question of paying rent for the said premises does not arise at all. It is also pleaded that the petitioner had originally addressed the notice to address bearing no. 1738 but deliberately changed it to 1739 so that the demand notice may never reach the respondent. Hence, it is prayed that the eviction petition may be dismissed.
REJOINDER
4. Thereafter rejoinder /replication was filed by the petitioner wherein averments of written statement were denied and averments of the petition were re-affirmed by the petitioner. Additionally, it is stated that Sh. Hatkeshwar Nath Temple (also known as Gujrati Temple) is having main Municipal No. 1739 and there is only one tenant namely Sanjay in the tenanted shop. Hence it is stated that the objection qua the wrong number of premises as 1738 is meaningless.
RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 4 of 18 TRIAL
5. During the pendency of proceedings, respondent also filed an application u/o 7 R 11 CPC seeking rejection of the petition on the ground that he is a tenant in premises no. 1738, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, whereas eviction petition has been filed qua premises no. 1739, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. However the said application was dismissed vide order dated 16.04.2019 since the assertions on the basis of which rejection was sought was not made out from the eviction petition. Matter was thereafter adjourned for petitioners evidence.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
6. Originally, the petition was filed through AR Varun Dave. However, at the time of petitioner's evidence, the petitioner society led evidence through AR Sachin Nagar. He tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
1. Ex.PW1/1 is copy of Board Resolution dated 01.10.2022.
2. Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR) is copy of certificate of registration.
3. Ex. PW-1/3 is site plan.
4.Ex.PW-1/4 is certified copy of the order dated 18.05.2012 passed by Competent Authority (Slum).
5. Ex. PW-1/5 is copy of legal notice dated 14.02.2013.
6. Ex. PW-1/6 (colly) are the postal receipts.
7. Ex. PW-1/7 is original return envelop of legal notice.
7. In his cross-examination, he stated that one case with regard to deposit of rent was filed by the respondent after the filing of this case which has already been disposed off. He however stated that he does not have any RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 5 of 18 knowledge whether any other case was filed against the respondent prior to filing of the present case. He further deposed that he is not an executive member in the society and he has taken membership as a simple member in the year 2019 only. He further stated that earlier his father was a member in the society and after the demise of his father, he took membership in the society. He admitted that Ex. PW-1/2 does not bear the address of the society. He further conceded that the property in question has been declared as a heritage property. He admitted that no permission has been sought from MCD or ASI prior to institution of the present case. He, however, stated that there is no requirement for taking of permission from MCD or ASI. He admitted that one notice was also sent to the respondent prior to the notice dated 14.02.2013 but he does not remember the date of the said notice. Thereafter attention of the witness was drawn towards a notice dated 18.12.2009 and he stated that the said notice was sent probably to 1739, Kucha Lattu Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi
-06. He denied the suggestion that the notice dated 18.12.2009 was not sent on 1739, Kucha Lattu Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi -06. He further denied the suggestion that he has changed the address from 1738, Kucha Lattu Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi -06 to 1739, Kucha Lattu Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi -06 and filed the same in the court in the present matter. He also denied the suggestion that he has no authority as a witness since the board resolution has authorized him to appear as a witness with regard to dispute related to 1739, Kucha Lattu Shah, Dariba Kalab, RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 6 of 18 Delhi -06 and not with regard to 1738, Kucha Lattu Shah, Dariba Kalab, Delhi -06. He further stated that he does not remember the date from which the respondent or his father was inducted as a tenant in property no. 1738, Kucha Lattu Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi -06. He denied the suggestion that as per the house tax department of MCD, property no. 1738-1740, Kucha Lattu Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi -06 has separate municipal numbers of which rent fixation was done in the year 1969 prior to the registration of the society. Thereafter, a specific question was put to the witness and he was asked if it is correct that Sh. Bhagwan Dass was tenant in the property bearing no. 1740, Kucha Lattu Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi -06. He replied that Sh. Bhagwan Dass was tenant in the property bearing no. 1739, Kucha Lattu Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi -06 in one of the shops which was owned by the mandir and that the entire property bearing no. 1739, Kucha Lattu Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi -06 is of the Mandir. He, however, stated that he does not know if Sh. Bhagwan Dass had passed away in the year 1998 and whether the premises taken on rent by him was lying vacant after his demise. He denied the suggestion that a false case has been filed against the respondent in order to let out the property to some other person after taking heavy amount of pagri/ advance. He further denied the suggestion that false site plan has been filed since in it only details with regard to the property bearing no. 1739 has been shown and it does not reflect the entire property i.e. 1738 -1740, Kucha Lattu Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi -06. He further denied that no RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 7 of 18 demand notice was given or has been served upon the respondent. He also denied the suggestion that the present petition is not maintainable as proper pleadings have not been made. He stated that he is aware about the proceedings which was filed before the Slum and JJA Competent Authority, under Section 19 prior to filing of the present case and in that proceedings, a demand notice dated 18.12.2009 was filed. He however stated that he does not know as to which address it was sent. He also denied the suggestion that as per Ex. PW-1/4, no permission was granted to the society to proceed against the eviction of property no.1738, Kucha Lattu Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi -06 occupied by the respondent. He also denied that the legal notice dated 14.02.2013 i.e. Ex. PW-1/5 does not form the part of the proceedings before the Competent Authority as it was sent after the disposal of proceedings before the Competent Authority. He further denied that the notice dated 14.02.2013 was neither sent to the respondent nor received by the respondent.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
8. No other witness was examined by the petitioner.
Matter was then adjourned for respondent's evidence. Respondent Sanjay examined himself as RW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A. In addition he relied upon the following documents :-
i) Ex. RW-1/1 (colly-3 ) (OSR) are the copies of rent receipts.
ii) Ex. RW-1/2 (OSR) is copy of passbook showing the address as 1738, Kucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi
iii) Ex. RW-1/3 (OSR) is copy of certificate issued by Dy.
Commissioner Delhi dated 29.07.1963 in the name of father of the RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 8 of 18 respondent.
iv) Ex. RW-1/4 (colly-4 pages) (OSR) are copis of electricity bills of the suit premises.
v) Ex. RW-1/5 (OSR) is copy of telephone bill of the suit premises.
vi) Ex. RW-1/6 (OSR) copoy of adhoc application form of retail shop, MCD in respect of the suit premises.
vii) Ex. RW-1/7 (OSR) is copy of RTI application and the documents obtained through RTI from the Office of MCD.
viii) Ex. RW-1/8 (OSR) is copy of police complaint lodged against the petitioner vide DD No. 51-B dated 11.07.2013.
9. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the petitioner's property is having no. 1738-1740, Kucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. He further denied that his tenanted premises is situated on basement. He, however, admitted that the petitioner's property situated on higher level and his premises are on lower level. He further stated that he had visited the property about 20 days ago and had also opened the same. He, however, stated that he does not remember the date when the electricity charges were lastly paid but he can after looking from his documents provide actual reply. He denied the suggestion that he used to pay the rent on receiving notice from the petitioner. He, however, stated that the rent used to be taken by the petitioner for the period of one year and since 1990, petitioner has not issued the rent receipt. He further stated that sometimes he used to also deposit the rent in the court and he has sent the due rent through money order also. He denied the suggestion that he has received the notice as sent by the petitioner. He admitted that he has not filed any site plan showing that the tenanted premises is not 1739 but 1738. He further denied the suggestion that he has not opened the shop from RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 9 of 18 the last many years. He also denied the suggestion that the property may fall down as the same is not being used and that the water is lying nearby his tenanted premises.
ARGUMENTS
10. Thereafter matter was adjourned for final arguments as no other witness was examined by the respondent. Both the parties filed written submissions. Oral arguments were advanced by counsel Sh. Harish Chander on behalf of the petitioner and by counsel Sh. M.P. Singh on behalf of the respondent.
11. Ld. Counsel for the respondent additionally relied upon the following judgments i.e.
(a) Ram Krishna Prasad Vs. Mohd. Yahia (AIR 1960 Allahabad 482)
(b) Daulat Ram Vs. Som Nath, AIR 1981 Delhi 354
(c) Sh. Budh Prakash Sethi Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi & Ors (AIR CJ 1981 (2) Delhi Page 265-273)
(d) M/s. Surajmull Ghanshyam Dass vs. Samadarshan Sur (AIR 1969 Calcutta
109)
(e) Chiman Lal Vs. Mishri Lal (AIR 1985 SC 136)
(f) Ram Prasad Vs. Hari Narain (AIR 1998 Rajasthan 185)
(g) CMK Raman Mudation Vs. Kauthamani Natrajan, DOD 5.07.78 Madras High Court.
RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 10 of 18 FINDINGS
12. At the outset, it is stated here that there is no doubt regarding the case laws filed on behalf of the parties where the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has laid down the principles with respect to provisions of the DRC Act, 1958 in different factual scenarios. However, each case has its own distinguishing facts and circumstances and each matter has to be decided in its own factual background. It is trite to state that to have an order of eviction under Section 14 (1) (a) DRC Act, the petitioner has to establish the following:-
(i) That there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
(ii) That the respondent was in arrears of rent/legally recoverable rent on and before the date of notice of demand;
(iii) That the respondent/tenant was served with the notice of demand in the manner as provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act ;
(iv) That the respondent/tenant failed to pay or tender the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him alongwith interest as claimed within two months of the service of notice of demand upon him.
13. However, before giving any finding upon the aforesaid issues, it is essential to determine the dispute between the parties qua the identity of the tenanted premises. The respondent herein has taken the plea that though he is a tenant of the petitioner but he is not the RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 11 of 18 tenant of shop in property bearing no. 1739, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi but he is in occupation of premises bearing no. 1738, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Per contra, the petitioner has alleged that there is no dispute qua the tenanted premises and the respondent is only trying to confuse and mislead the court. It is stated that the premise number of the entire property as per the house tax department of MCD is 1738-1740, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. It is further stated that the petitioner is a tenant in one of the shops of the mandir and there is no dispute qua the identity of the said shop which is shown in red colour in the site plan. It is also stated that the number 1738 is a private identification number of the shop and not a separate property.
14. Perusal of description of tenanted premises in the eviction petition shows that it has been described as "ground floor, shop measuring 16x8 in property bearing no. 1739, Kucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110006". Further, in the prayer clause of eviction petition also, the tenanted shop qua which eviction is sought is referred as "tenanted shop on the ground floor in property bearing no. 1739, Kucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi". However, perusal of site plan Ex. PW-1/3 shows that no shop in red colour has been shown on ground floor. Rather, the tenanted shop has been shown in the site plan in the semi-basement. Thus, there is inherent contradiction in the pleadings of the petitioner RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 12 of 18 itself qua the identity of tenanted premises for which eviction is sought. It is trite to state that pleadings from backbone of litigation and care must be taken while drafting the pleadings. The said fact could have been ignored, had there been no dispute between the parties qua the identity of premises. However, when the main defence/objection taken by the respondent was the identity of tenanted premises, onus was on petitioner to prove the same.
15. Here, I also find it pertinent to refer the replication of the petitioner whereby it is pleaded that dispute qua the premises number is meaningless since there is only one tenant in the Mandir. However, PW-1 himself admitted in the cross examination that there was one more tenant namely Bhagwan Dass in one of the shops in property no. 1739, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. But nowhere in the site plan any other shop has been reflected. Moreover, it is not clear whether the said shop of Bhagwan Dass was on the ground floor or semi- basement.
16. It is also pertinent to mention herein that repeatedly in the pleadings and evidence by way of affidavit, petitioner has deposed that respondent is a tenant in one of the shop in the property. Further, he has admitted that there was another shop in which Bhagwan Dass was a tenant. Thus, admittedly, as per the case of petitioner itself, there are multiple shops in the premises. But in the site plan, no RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 13 of 18 other shop is reflected. This gives credence to the contention of respondent that instead of issuing notice and summons qua the shop of respondent, the same have been affixed at some other shop in the premises. Furthermore, the version of the respondent that he is a tenant in shop bearing premises no. 1738, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, is also corroborated by the rent receipts Ex. RW-1/1, his bank passbook Ex. RW-1/2, electricity bills Ex. RW-1/4, all of which mention the address of his tenanted premises as 1738, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
17. Hence, I find that there are material holes in the case of petitioner qua the identity of tenanted premises. Moreover, there is inherent contradiction in the pleadings of petitioner as relief is sought qua shop on ground floor but in the site plan Ex. PW-1/3, tenanted shop qua which eviction is sought is shown on semi-basement. Also, respondent has established on the basis of pre-ponderence of probabilities that the tenanted premises is shop bearing premises no. 1738, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Hence, in the light of the said findings, I proceed to decide whether the petitioner has proved the essential requirements for seeking eviction under Section 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act.
18. As far as the question of landlord-tenant relationship is concerned, the respondent has not disputed that he is the tenant of the petitioner. Hence, the said fact is not in issue RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 14 of 18 and is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner.
19. The second essential that needs to be proven in a petition u/s 14 (1) (a) is that the respondent was in arrears of legally recoverable rent on or before the date of the legal demand notice. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent stopped paying the rent w.e.f. March 2005. However, as discussed above, the respondent has established, on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities, that he is a tenant in shop in premises bearing no. 1738 Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Therefore, the question of non-payment of rent of shop on ground floor in premises no. 1739, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi does not arise. Furthermore, the pleadings of the petitioner are itself contradictory to the site plan on record filed by the petitioner himself. As per the pleadings, the tenanted shop is on the ground floor whereas no such shop on the ground floor has been shown in the site plan. Rather the tenanted premises in the site plan have been shown in the semi basement. Hence, I find that petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent was in arrears of rent with respect to shop on ground floor, in premises no. 1739, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
20. As far as the ground of service of the demand notice and the non-payment of arrears of rent even after receipt of the demand notice is concerned, the petitioner has filed on record the legal demand notice dated 18.12.2009 (Part of RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 15 of 18 Ex. PW1/4) and legal notice dated 14.02.2013 Ex. PW-1/5, alongwith postal receipts Ex. PW-1/6 and returned envelopes Ex. PW-1/7. It has been averred by the petitioner that despite service of legal demand notice, the respondent chose not to pay the rent demanded in the legal notice within two months of the receipt of the legal notice. Further, no reply was sent by the respondent within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the legal demand notice. Per contra, it is the averment of the respondent that the legal demand notice was not received by the respondent. It is also submitted that the petitioner did not send the legal notice at the correct address.
21. With respect to service of notice of demand, I find that both the notices are addressed to "Sh. Sanjay, S/o Late Sh. Jagannath, C/o 1739, Kucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110006". However, as per the rent receipts Ex. RW-1/1, which have not been disputed by the petitioner, the address of the respondent is shop no. 1738, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Hence, as per the rent receipts of the petitioner himself, the notice was not addressed to the correct address. Furthermore, the said address of the respondent is corroborated from the bank passbook Ex. RW-1/2, certificate of MCD Ex. RW-1/3, electricity bills Ex. RW-1/4, telephone bills Ex. RW-1/5 as well. In Gurdev Singh Bindra Vs. Ranbir Singh 169 (2010) DLT 680, it was observed by the Hon'ble court that the landlord has no responsibility against the tenant to furnish any other RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 16 of 18 address except the tenanted premises. However, in the present matter, the legal notice was not addressed to the tenanted premises which is 1738, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Hence, the petitioner is also not entitled to the benefit of Section 27 of General Clauses Act. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act is applicable, in case, a document is properly addressed and posted by registered post, where a presumption of due service is drawn and the onus to prove the contrary lies upon the party alleging non-receipt.
22. It is now to be seen that even if, the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act is not applied to the present case, whether or not the legal demand notice was delivered to the respondent. However, as per the report on the legal notices, it was found that the said shop at 1739, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi was locked. Therefore, notice was affixed on the address. However, in Shyam Sunder Wadhawan Vs. Vivek Arya RC REV No. 294/17 & CM No. 14886/14 dated 09.09.2014, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that service done by affixation is valid service. However, the said service through affixation must be done following refusal to receive summons or when the respondent uses subterfuges to deny the receipt of the summons. But, in the present case, since the legal notices were not addressed to the tenanted premises/address of respondent, therefore, it cannot be held that there was refusal on the part of respondent. Hence, the service RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 17 of 18 through affixation is not valid service as the same has not been done at the address of the respondent. Thus, the said issue is decided against the petitioner.
23. Section 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act provides for payment of rent demanded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the legal demand notice. However, since the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent was tenant at shop on ground floor at 1739, Khucha Latoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi as shown in the red colour in the site plan, I find that then the question of payment of rent does not arise. Furthermore, petitioner has also failed to prove service of legal notice qua the tenanted premises. Hence, the said issue is also decided against the petitioner.
RELIEF
24. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, it is held that the petitioner has failed in establishing its case u/s 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the respondent. As such, the petition under Section 14(1) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act is dismissed. No order as to cost.
File be consigned to Record Room after due
Digitally signed
compliance. RUPINDER by RUPINDER
SINGH SINGH DHIMAN
Date: 2024.12.19
(Announced in the Open Court) DHIMAN 16:14:37 +0530 (Rupinder Singh Dhiman) ARC-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi 19.12.2024 RC ARC No.79564/16 Hatkeshwarnath Nagar Bahman Mandal Vs. Sanjay page Nos. 18 of 18