Delhi District Court
Rakesh Sharma vs Wazir Chand on 6 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL
WEST DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
RCT ARCT No. 18/2025
CNR No. DLWT01-008195-2025
Rakesh Sharma
S/o. Sh. Lagan Dev
R/o. Flat No. B-294, 3rd Floor
Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064. ..... Appellant
Versus
Wazir Chand
S/o. Sh. Chunni Lal
R/o. H. No. BE-31, Hari Nagar
New Delhi-110064. ..... Respondent
Date of institution : 14.08.2025
Date of reserving Judgment : 28.10.2025
Date of pronouncement : 06.11.2025
Appearances:
Mr. Atul Kharbanda, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Manuj Aggarwal and Mr. Khushagar Tyagi, Advocates for the
respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter 'the Act') filed by the tenant/appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned ACJ-cum-ARC (West), THC, Delhi, whereby the petition of the landlord/respondent under Section 14(1)(a) read with Section 14(2) of the Act was allowed.
BRIEF FACTS
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 1 of 19 the filing of this appeal are that the respondent is the owner and landlord of the premises bearing No. B-294, 3 rd Floor (right side from front view), Hari Nagar, New Delhi- 110064 (hereinafter 'tenanted premises'). The appellant is the tenant of the respondent in the tenanted premises. In CS No.40/2009 titled Wazir Chand v. Rajesh Sharma vide judgment dated 18.05.2013, the appellant/tenant was held to be the tenant of the respondent in the tenanted premises on the monthly rent of Rs. 1500/-. The premises were let out on 01.06.2003, but there is no written agreement between the parties. The respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1) (a) of the Act being eviction petition No. 65/2014 renumbered as eviction petition No. 27562/2016, titled as Wazir Chand v. Rajesh Sharma. During pendency of the said petition, the order under Section 15 (1) of the Act was passed on 04.04.2015 and the respondent was directed to pay the arrears of rent from September 2011 to January 2014 and from November 2014 till the date of passing of the order, future rent @ of Rs. 1500 per month by the 15 th of each month next to which the rent is due for, along with statutory interest at the rate of 15% per annum. Since the appellant/tenant failed to comply with the order dated 04.04.2015, the respondent/landlord moved an application under section 15(7) of the Act on 16.08.2017.
2.1 In the proceedings in the said eviction petition No. 27562/2016, vide order dated 14.05.2018, the learned ARC directed the appellant/tenant to submit his account statement and also directed him to comply with the order under Section 15(1) of the Act, by depositing monthly rent in the account of the respondent/landlord. On 24.07.2018, the appellant/tenant was examined under Order 10 Rule 1 RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 2 of 19 CPC and during his examination, he admitted the case of the respondent/landlord and also admitted being in default in payment of arrears of rent. The appellant/tenant also admitted the service of the legal demand notice and non payment of arrears of rent within a period of two months. In view of the admissions, the learned ARC vide order dated 24.07.2018 allowed the petition and the appellant/tenant was held to be a defaulter in payment of arrears of rent. The appellant/tenant undertook to clear the entire arrears within three months and also undertook to regularly deposit the monthly rent of Rs.1500/- per month by 15th of each succeeding month in the account of the respondent/landlord. While allowing the eviction petition, the learned ARC extended the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act to the appellant/tenant and also granted liberty to the respondent/landlord to move the appropriate application in case of three consecutive defaults in payment of rent by the appellant. This order was not challenged.
2.2 As per the present petition, the appellant/tenant again defaulted in payment of the rent. He not only did not clear the entire arrears of rent, within three months from the date of the order dated 24.07.2018, but also did not pay the rent in time, as stipulated in the said order. The respondent/landlord in his petition has given in detail the rent of the tenanted premises received by him with effect from 16.10.2018 till 16.03.2021, which is set out below for ready reference and to give a clear picture:
S. No. DATE MODE OF AMOUNT
DEPOSIT DEPOSITED
1 16.08.2018 Direct Transfer Rs. 1500/-
RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 3 of 19
2 16.08.2018 Direct Transfer Rs. 1500/-
3 14.09.2018 Cheque deposited NIL
but rejected
4 16.10.2018 Direct Transfer Rs.1500/-
5 20.10.2018 Direct Transfer Rs. 5000/-
6 25.10.2018 Cash Deposit Rs. 5000/-
7 14.11.2018 Direct Transfer Rs.1500/-
8 14.12.2018 Direct Transfer Rs.1500/-
9 15.01.2019 Direct Transfer Rs.1500/-
10 14.02.2019 Cheque deposited NIL
but rejected
11 13.03.2019 Direct Transfer Rs. 1500/-
12 12.04.2019 Direct Transfer Rs. 1500/-
13 10.05.2019 Cheque deposited NIL
but rejected
14 13.06.2019 Direct Transfer Rs. 1500/-
15 10.07.2019 Cheque deposited NIL
but rejected
16 16.08.2019 Cheque deposited NIL
but rejected
17 30.08.2019 Direct Transfer Rs. 1500/-
18 16.09.2019 Direct Transfer Rs. 1500/-
19 15.10.2019 Direct Transfer Rs. 1500/-
20 14.11.2019 Cash Deposit Rs. 1500/-
21 16.12.2019 I.M.P.S Rs. 1500/-
22 15.01.2020 Cash Deposit Rs. 1500/-
23 12.02.2020 Direct Transfer Rs. 1500/-
24 16.03.2020 Direct Transfer Rs. 1500/-
25 15.04.2020 No Transfer NIL
26 15.05.2020 No Transfer NIL
27 15.06.2020 No Transfer NIL
RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 4 of 19
28 15.07.2020 Direct Transfer Rs. 2000/-
29 12.08.2020 Direct Transfer Rs. 2000/-
30 15.09.2020 No Transfer NIL
31 15.10.2020 Direct Transfer Rs. 2500/-
32 15.11.2020 No Transfer NIL
33 16.12.2020 Direct Transfer Rs. 3000/-
34 15.01.2021 No Transfer NIL
35 15.02.2021 No Transfer NIL
36 15.03.2021 No Transfer NIL
Total Amount Rs. 45,000/-
received
2.3 It is claimed by the respondent/landlord in his petition that the
appellant/tenant for two different periods firstly, from 15.04.2020 to 15.06.2020 and secondly, from 15.01.2021 to 15.03.2021 committed default in payment of rent for a consecutive period of three months each. Despite issuance of legal demand notice dated 25.03.2021, demanding the arrears of rent, the appellant/tenant deposited in the bank account of the respondent/landlord an amount of Rs. 6,000/- on 03.04.2021 by way of bank transfer and Rs. 3,000/- on 12.04.2021 by cash deposit. Thereafter, the appellant/tenant did not deposit any amount towards the entire arrears of rent, because of which the present petition was filed.
3. The appellant/tenant filed his reply and contested the petition interalia on the ground that the respondent/landlord had concealed facts in his petition. The respondent/landlord had filed a suit for possession, recovery of rent and damages against the appellant/tenant titled as Wazir Chand v. Rakesh Sharma which was partly decreed.
RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 5 of 19While decreeing the suit partly, the Court had held that the appellant/tenant was liable to pay rent of Rs.1500/- per month from three years prior to filing of the suit i.e. from January 2006. Despite the appellant/tenant tendering the rent, the respondent/landlord failed to accept it. It has been averred in the reply that the appellant/tenant has never been in default of payment of rent for three consecutive months. The respondent/landlord has concealed facts with regard to rent received, in his petition. The appellant/tenant has paid the entire monthly rent to the respondent and so the suit be dismissed.
4. The respondent in his replication has denied the allegation that he had concealed facts from the Court.
WITNESSES EXAMINED IN THE TRIAL
5. The respondent/landlord stepped in the witness box in support of his case as PW1 and tendered his examination-in-chief on affidavit (Ex.PW1/A). He has proved the site plan as Ex. PW1/1; the order dated 24.07.2018 in Eviction Petition No. 25762 of 2016 titled Wazir Chand v. Rakesh Sharma as Ex. PW1/2; legal notice dated 25.03.2021 as Ex.PW1/3 (colly); original courier receipt vide which the legal notice was sent as Ex. PW1/4; original speed post receipt vide which the legal notice was sent as Ex.PW1/5; screenshot of the legal notice sent on the WhatsApp number of the appellant/tenant as Ex.PW1/6 (colly); internet generated copy of the tracking report of the India Post (vide which the legal notice was sent) as Ex.PW1/7; statement of the savings bank account of the respondent/landlord as Ex. PW1/8 (colly) and; account statement of the period of 2003 of the respondent/landlord as Ex.PW1/X1. The appellant/tenant despite RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 6 of 19 being given opportunity did not lead evidence before the Trial Court.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
6. The learned ARC vide the impugned judgment has held that the fact that the parties have a landlord-tenant relationship has not been disputed. There was no written rent agreement between the parties. In the earlier petition (petition No. 27562/2016) filed by the respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, vide order dated 14.05.2018, the appellant/tenant was directed to comply with the order under Section 15 (1) of the Act, passed in that case and it was directed that the appellant/tenant shall deposit monthly rent in the account of the respondent/landlord. When the matter was taken up on the next date of hearing, the appellant/tenant was examined under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC wherein he admitted the case of the respondent/landlord that he is in possession of the tenanted premises having rent of Rs. 1500/- per month. In that case, the appellant/tenant also admitted to being in default of payment of arrears of rent. In view of the admission, the petition under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Act was allowed. It was held that the appellant/tenant is the defaulter in payment of arrears of rent and that he had paid the arrears of rent till August 2017, and at that time the arrears of rent of Rs.30,500/- were remaining to be paid from September 2017 till July 2018. On the same day i.e. on 24.07.2018, the matter was disposed of on the undertaking of the appellant, that he would clear the arrears within the next three months and regularly deposit monthly rent of Rs.1500/- by the 15th day of each succeeding month in the account of the respondent/landlord. In view of the same, the Court had granted the RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 7 of 19 respondent benefit under Section 14 (2) of the Act. It has been proved that the demand notice (Ex.PW1/3) dated 25.03.2021 in which arrears of Rs.33,500/- have also been sought, was duly served upon the appellant. The fact that the appellant/tenant was granted the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act was proved by the order dated 24.07.2018 Ex. PW1/2.
6.1 With regard to the allegation of the subsequent default in payment of rent firstly from 15.04.2020 to 15.06.2020 and secondly, from 15.01.2021 to 15.03.2021, the respondent/landlord (PW1) has reiterated the averments in his examination-in-chief on affidavit. The respondent (PW1) during his cross examination, was only asked as to whether it was during COVID that the defaults were made. He admitted that COVID was there from March 2020 till September 2021. Thus, the factum of default is implied to be admitted by the appellant. It has been held that the appellant/tenant chose not to lead any evidence and his claim that all dues were paid is not supported by any evidence and infact the factum of non-payment is an admitted position in view of the questions posed to the respondent/landlord (PW1) in his cross-examination.
6.2 With regard to the argument that the respondent/landlord had admitted receipt of huge amount of advance rent and even if the rent was not paid this amount can be adjusted, it was held that there was nothing to suggest that this advance rent was to be adjusted for payment of future rent in terms of the order dated 24.07.2018 of the prior eviction petition. In the absence of any appropriation, the money was to be applied to satisfy the oldest debt first in terms of Section 61 RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 8 of 19 of the Indian Contract Act. It was also held that in view of COVID- 19, default in payment of rent cannot be condoned. It is on the basis of the evidence that the learned ARC held that the respondent/landlord had proved that the appellant/tenant had failed to pay the rent to him for a continuous period of three months firstly, from April to June 2020 and secondly, from January to March 2021. This was in violation of Section 14 (2) of the Act as well as order dated 24.07.2018, vide which protection from eviction was granted to the appellant/tenant subject to him paying rent to the respondent/landlord. Thus, the issue "whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of eviction against the respondent as prayed for? OPP"
was decided in favor of the petitioner/respondent and against the appellant/tenant vide the impugned judgment. The petition was allowed and the eviction order was passed in favour of the petitioner/respondent qua the tenanted premises.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
7. The impugned judgment has been challenged on the following grounds raised in the appeal :-
(i) The learned ARC did not consider the entire record i.e. pleadings of the parties and evidence. He also did not appreciate the legal provisions while passing the eviction order. The learned ARC failed to appreciate that as per Section 14(2) of the Act, such defaults for payment of rent must be for three consecutive months and if the tenant makes a payment for alternative months he may remain a defaulter but if the default is not consecutive, then he is not liable to be evicted. However, in the present case the learned ARC committed serious error in not appreciating the law correctly.RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 9 of 19
(ii) The learned ARC did not give any finding as to for which three months the appellant/tenant had committed default consecutively.
Rent when became due was to be paid by the 15 th day of the next calendar month as defined under the Act. Therefore, the rent for April 2020 was to be paid by 15th May 2020 and similarly the rent for May 2020 was to be paid by 15 th June 2020 and the rent for June 2020 was to be paid by the next month of 15th day of July 2020.
(iii) The rent was to be paid at the end of next month i.e. rent for 15 th April 2020 to 14th May 2020 could be paid at the end of May 2020 and so on therefore counting the payment of rent in this way, there was no default for three consecutive months either during the period 15.04.2020 to 15.06.2020 nor for the period 15.01.2021 to 15.3.2021. In particular after receipt of the notice dated 25.03.2021, the rent was paid by depositing the same in the bank account on 03.04.2021 amounting to Rs. 6,000/- and thereafter on 12.04.2021 amounting to Rs.3,000/- therefore, there was no default as held by the learned ARC consecutively for three months. Even otherwise perusal of the statements filed by the respondent/landlord himself shows there was no transfer of rent on 15.04.2020 which could be paid up to the end of May, 2020 and similarly for next two months that is rent due for 15.06.2020 to 15.07.2020, could be paid by 30.07.2020. Admittedly as per the statement of account, Rs. 2,000/- were deposited on 15.07.2020 therefore there was no consecutive default for three months. Hence, the finding of the learned ARC in this regard is totally misconceived and the eviction order is liable to be set aside.
RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 10 of 198. The respondent in his reply to the appeal has stated that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. On 27.03.2025, the respondent / landlord was recalled for his further cross-examination and during his cross-examination, a question was put to him by the appellant / tenant which he replied as under :
"3...........It is correct that from March, 2020 till September, 2021 there was corona period when the first and second default was done by respondent........."
Thus, the appellant/ tenant by putting such a question admitted to the defaults on two occasions leaving no matter of doubt. He himself chose not to lead evidence to disprove the contentions of the respondent / landlord or the facts pleaded by him.
8.1 The appellant / tenant does not dispute being a tenant under the respondent / landlord and also has admitted the rent to be Rs. 1500/- per month excluding electricity and water charges. He does not also dispute him having been granted benefit under Section 14 (2) of the Act on 24.07.2018 (first default) in the Eviction Petition No. 25762 of 2016 titled Wazir Chand v. Rakesh Sharma. In the legal notice dated 25.03.2021, the respondent / landlord specifically set out in tabulation the arrears of rent due and payable by the appellant / tenant as also the rent for three consecutive months that was not paid by the appellant / tenant on two different occasions, thereby committing second default.
8.2 It is further stated in the reply that the appellant / tenant chose not to respond to the legal notice. No evidence has been led by the appellant / tenant to show that he did not commit the second default. From the pleadings and evidence led, it has been established and RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 11 of 19 proved by the landlord / respondent that the appellant / tenant has committed second default in payment of rent for three consecutive months. The interpretation being sought to be promulgated by the appellant / tenant at the stage of appeal is not available to him as it has been clearly proved that he has committed default in payment of rent for three consecutive months. The appeal is totally devoid of merit.
9. Arguments were addressed by Mr. Atul Kharbanda, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manuj Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent, reiterating the grounds in the appeal and reply respectively.
DECISION
10. It would be expedient to set out the relevant provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Section 14(1) (a) of the Act 14 (1) Notwithstanding 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:
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 of the following grounds only, namely:-
(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date 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, 1882 (4 of 1882);
Section 14 (2) of the Act 14 (2) No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (a) of the RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 12 of 19 proviso to sub-section (1), if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by section 15;
Provided that no tenant shall be entitled to the benefit under this sub-section, if, having obtained such benefit once in respect of any premises, he again makes a default in the payment of rent of those premises for three consecutive months.
11. In view of the above legal provisions, it has to be seen if in the present case whether the appellant/tenant did not pay or tender the complete dues towards rent to the respondent/landlord; the respondent/landlord served the notice of demand of such arrears of rent as per the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act upon the appellant/tenant; the appellant/tenant was given an opportunity to avoid eviction in case he complied with the directions for payment of rent as per Section 14(2) of the Act and; despite having been given the said opportunity, the appellant/tenant committed default in payment of rent for three consecutive months, making him liable to be evicted as per the proviso to Section 14(2) of the Act.
12. The fact that the appellant is the tenant of the respondent/landlord is an admitted position. It is also an admitted position that when the appellant/tenant did not pay rent and was in arrears, legal notice dated 11.01.2014 was sent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act demanding payment of arrears and when no payment was made, Eviction Petition No. 27562/2016 titled Wazir Chand v. Rajesh Sharma was filed. In this proceeding, order dated 04.04.2015 under Section 15(1) of the Act was passed, for payment of arrears and subsequent rent which was not complied with. Vide order RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 13 of 19 dated 14.05.2018 (Ex.PW1/2) in the said eviction petition, in view of the admission of the appellant/tenant during his examination under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC, that he had received the legal notice and had not paid the arrears as mentioned in the petition, the petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act was allowed. It was also recorded that the respondent/landlord had admitted that the appellant/respondent had cleared the arrears of rent, pursuant to the order of the Court till August, 2017 and now Rs. 30,500/- remained to be paid as arrears of rent from September 2017 to July 2018, including interest @ 15% per annum. The appellant/tenant gave his statement that he would clear the entire arrears of rent within three months from the date of the order and regularly deposit monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- by the 15 th of each succeeding month in the account of the petitioner. Accordingly, the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act was given to the appellant/tenant and liberty was given to the respondent/landlord to move an appropriate application in case of three consecutive defaults in payment of rent by the respondent. The above position is not disputed by the appellant/tenant. The present petition was filed under Section 14(1)(a) read with Section 14(2) of the Act, claiming second default on the part of the appellant/tenant, making him liable for eviction under the proviso to Section 14 (2) of the Act.
13. Firstly, I shall deal with the issue of admission of the two periods of default in payment of rent for three consecutive months, by the appellant/tenant. A perusal of the Trial Court record and the evidence produced, clearly shows that when the respondent/landlord (PW1) stepped in the witness box on 27.03.2025 for his cross- examination, his attention was drawn to para 16 of his evidence RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 14 of 19 affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) after which he replied "After seeing Para No.16 of my affidavit, April, May and June, 2020, respondent continued default in paying the rent consecutively for three months and the second default of non-payment of rent by the respondent to the petitioner was January, February and March, 2021." The case of the appellant, as put to the respondent/landlord (PW1) in the latter's cross-examination by way of a question was whether it was correct that from March, 2020 till September, 2021 it was Corona period when the first and second default was committed. In response to which, the respondent/landlord (PW1) has stated that "It is correct that from March 2020 till September 2021 was Corona period when the first and second default was done by the respondent." This goes to show, as rightly held by the learned ARC, that it is an admitted position that there were two periods of defaults in payment of rent for three consecutive months.
14. The ground raised in this appeal, that there was no default in payment of rent for three consecutive months, since the rent could be paid till the end of the next month or that since the rent for June, 2020 was paid on 15.07.2020, still does not show that there was no default for three consecutive months. Even going by this logic, the rent for the months of March 2020 and December 2020 was not paid thus, showing default for three consecutive months. Significantly, this ground does not find mention in the reply to the petition before the learned Trial Court and was also not raised at the stage of final arguments. There was no evidence led by the appellant/tenant to prove that there were no two periods of three consecutive defaults. In fact, the only defence raised in the course of arguments before the RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 15 of 19 learned Trial Court as finds mention in the impugned judgment was that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ordered extension of all limitation periods and that there was no malafides on the part of the appellant/tenant and he cannot be faulted for being unable to pay the rent. It was also argued that the respondent/landlord had admittedly received a huge amount of advance rent and even if the rent was not paid, this amount can be adjusted. Rightly, no merit was found in these arguments raised before the learned ARC, which have been dealt with in detail in the impugned judgment.
15. The legal notice dated 25.03.2021 Ex.PW1/3 (colly) duly proved, clearly mentions the periods of default when payment was due but not made firstly, from 15.04.2020 to 15.06.2020 and secondly, from 15.01.2021 to 15.03.2021, so does the petition. The respondent/landlord (PW1) has deposed about the above said defaults in his examination-in-chief on affidavit (Ex.PW1/A). No suggestion whatsoever has been given to the respondent/landlord (PW1) about there being no default in payment of rent for the said two periods for three consecutive months. The appellant/tenant chose not to lead any evidence whatsoever, to disprove the case of the respondent. It has been claimed by the appellant/tenant that the learned ARC did not give any finding as to for which three months the appellant/tenant had committed default consecutively. This cannot be a reason to set aside the impugned judgment, considering that the two periods of three consecutive defaults have been proved and it is an admitted position that the appellant/tenant had undertaken to regularly deposit Rs.1500/- per month rent by 15th of each succeeding month in the RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 16 of 19 account of the respondent/landlord. The impugned judgment clearly mentions the two periods of default firstly, from April to June 2020 i.e on 15.04.2020, 15.05.2020 and 15.06.2020 and secondly, from January to March 2021 i.e on 15.01.2021, 15.02.2021 and 15.03.2021. Thus, going to show that rent was not paid for the concerned preceding months as per the undertaking given by the appellant/tenant himself i.e. for March - May 2020 and December 2020 - February 2021.
16. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/tenant that the tenancy was from 15th to 15th of every month, so the rent could be paid till the end of the next month cannot be accepted considering the order dated 24.07.2018, in the Eviction Petition No. 25762 of 2016 (Ex. PW1/2) which clearly records "Respondent has given statement that he would clear the entire arrears of rent within three months from today and also regularly deposit the monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- by 15th of each succeeding month in the account of the petitioner. Accordingly, benefit of Section 14 (2) of DRC Act is extended to the respondent. Petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate application in case of three consecutive default in payment of rent by the respondent. Petition is accordingly allowed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC." Also, the payments made by the appellant/tenant as per the chart (set out above in para 2.2 above) duly proved by the respondent/landlord, shows some payments towards rent being made before the 15th of the month. Pertinently, such a claim has neither been raised before the learned ARC nor proved by the appellant/tenant.
RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 17 of 1917. The claim of the appellant/tenant that there was no default in payment of rent for March 2021, since he deposited Rs. 6,000/- on 03.04.2021 and Rs.3,000/- on 12.04.2021 in the account of the respondent/landlord also cannot be accepted. As per the calculation of arrears proved by the respondent/landlord (PW-1), as also find mentioned in the legal notice [Ex.PW-1/3 (colly)], the arrears of rent as on 25th March, 2021 was Rs. 33,500/- qua payment of rent as per the undertaking given as mentioned in order dated 24.07.2018 in Eviction Petition No. 25762 of 2016 (Ex.PW1/2). No reply to the legal notice was given disputing the said amount of arrears. No evidence was produced to dispute the same. Also, it is nowhere the case of the appellant/tenant in his reply filed before the learned Trial Court that the Rs. 6,000/- paid on 03.04.2021 and Rs. 3,000/- paid on 12.04.2021 were towards the rent of March 2021. No suggestion was given to the respondent/landlord (PW1) in the course of his cross- examination that any of the above mentioned payments were specifically for the rent due for March, 2021 or that there were no arrears of rent for March, 2021 since payment of rent for the said month was made by depositing Rs. 6,000/- on 03.04.2021 and Rs.3,000/- on 12.04.2021. The claim of the respondent/landlord that as on 25.03.2021, there were arrears of Rs. 33,500/- exclusive of interest of 15% per month due and payable by the appellant, has not been disputed by the appellant/tenant. Thus, the said two payments as rightly held by the learned ARC went towards satisfaction of the previous arrears due. The appellant/tenant cannot be allowed to put up a totally new case at this stage. It has been rightly held by the learned ARC that the respondent/landlord has successfully proved that the appellant/tenant failed to comply with Section 14(2) of the Act by RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 18 of 19 defaulting in payment of rent directed under Section 15 (1) of the Act for a continuous period of three months and that the bar under the main provision of Section 14(2) of the Act was not applicable in this case as the second default had been successfully established. Accordingly, the petition under Section 14(1)(a) read with Section 14(2) of the Act has been rightly allowed by the learned ARC.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 23.07.2025 and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The Trial Court record along with copy of this judgment be sent back. The appeal file be consigned to the Record Room post Digitally signed by compliances. ADITI ADITI CHOUDHARY Announced in the open Court CHOUDHARY Date: 2025.11.06 on 6th day of November, 2025 17:04:03 +0530 (Dr. ADITI CHOUDHARY) Rent Control Tribunal (West) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi RCT No.18/2025 Rakesh Sharma v. Wazir Chand Page 19 of 19