Delhi District Court
Shri Om Nath Sharma vs Shri Bhan Singh on 3 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUGANDHA AGGARWAL,
ACJcumCCJcumARC, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI : DELHI
E.No.81/2012
[U/s 14 (1)(a) of DRC Act]
Unique Case ID No. 02404C0222092012
Shri Om Nath Sharma,
S/o Sh. Devi Charan Sharma,
R/o H5, Mahendra Park,
Jahangirpuri, Delhi - 110033. ...Petitioner
Versus
Shri Bhan Singh,
S/o Sh. Samay Singh,
R/o 644, ABlock,
Jahangirpuri, Delhi - 110033. ...Respondent
Date of Institution: 23.08.2012
Date of Arguments : 03.06.2013
Date of Decision: 03.07.2013
JUDGMENT:
1. Petitioners have filed the present petition against the respondent for eviction under section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
2. It is averred in the petition that petitioner is the owner of property bearing No. 644, ABlock, Jahangirpuri, Delhi - 110033 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises"). It is further averred that the suit premises was let E81/2012 Page No.1 of 6 out to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs.2000/. Petitioner has averred that since 1995, no rent has been paid by the respondent and respondent is in arrear of rent since then. A demand notice dated 19.3.2012 was also served upon the respondent but respondent failed to pay the arrears of rent despite service of notice and therefore present petition has been filed by the petitioner.
3. Summons of the present petition were duly served upon the respondent. However, despite service the respondent chose not to appear in the Court. Accordingly, respondent was proceeded exparte vide order dated 26.11.2012.
4. The petitioner lead evidence to prove his case wherein he examined himself as PW1. PW1 filed his affidavit Ex.PW1/A in examinationinchief wherein he reaffirmed and reasserted the contents of the petition on oath. PW1 identified the following documents :
1. Copies of GPA, Will, Receipt, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Possession Letter as Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/F.
2. Legal notice dated 19.3.2012 as Ex.PW1/G.
3. Postal receipt and courier receipt dated 21.3.2012 as Ex.PW1/H (colly.)
4. Site plan as Ex.PW1/J. PW1 was not crossexamined as the respondent was exparte. Thereafter, petitioner's evidence was closed.
E81/2012 Page No.2 of 6
5. Respondent remained exparte. Neither respondent's evidence was led nor final arguments were addressed by the respondent.
6. I have heard and considered the contentions raised by Ld. Counsel for petitioner and have carefully perused the record.
7. In his evidence, petitioner/PW1 has reaffirmed the contents of the petition on oath by way of affidavit. Respondent was duly served with the summons of the present petition. However, the respondent did not appear in the Court to rebut the submissions of the petitioners and was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 26.11.2012. PW1 in his evidence has stated that he is the owner/landlord of the suit premises. PW1 has further deposed that the respondent was inducted as tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.2000/ per month excluding electricity and water charges. It is further deposed that the respondent has neither tendered nor paid the rent to the petitioners since 1992. The legal notice dated 19.3.2012 Ex.PW1/G was served upon the respondent thereby terminating his tenancy and calling upon him to pay arrears of rent calculated at the rate of Rs.2000/ per month. It is further deposed by PW1 that respondent, despite service of legal notice, neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises and therefore the present petition has been filed. E81/2012 Page No.3 of 6
8. The entire testimony of PW1 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. PW1 has not been crossexamined on either of the depositions made by him in examinationinchief. Further the stand of PW1 is duly supported by the documents, hence, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner has proved his claim by preponderance of probabilities and the respondent is liable to be evicted for nonpayment of rent as per the provisions of Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioners for eviction of the respondent under section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is allowed.
9. However, as per the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in case a tenant is evicted for nonpayment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, he has to be given a chance for payment of arrears of rent so as to enable him to avail the benefit under Section 14(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
10. As per the case of the petitioner, the rent has not been paid since 1995 and legal demand notice is dated 19.3.2012 and the present petition has been filed on 23.8.2012. It is settled law that even for the purpose of Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, a landlord can claim only legally E81/2012 Page No.4 of 6 recoverable rent and rent which is barred by limitation cannot be claimed by the landlord. Reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Kamala Bakshi Vs. Khairati Lal 2000 (1) RCR (Rent) 400 (SC), Hari Shanker Saxena Vs. Sarla Devi & Ors. 1970 RCR 36, Satyendra Kumar Vs. Ramchandra Murthy 1975 RCR 320, Mankunwar Bai Vs. Sunderlal Jain 1978 (1) RCJ 249, Daulat Ram Vs. Som Nath 1981 (1) RCJ 220 (Delhi) wherein it has been observed as under : "The expression 'legally recoverable' means rent for the recovery of which there is no legal bar. One such bar may be the expiry of the period of limitation, as the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed by law bars the recovery of the said amount. Therefore, it has to be held that the words 'arrears of rent legally recoverable' means arrears of rent which are not barred by limitation."
11. Therefore, in the present case also, the respondent is liable to pay the legally recoverable arrears of rent i.e. three years immediately preceding from the date of filing of petition i.e. 23.8.2012 and arrears of rent prior to that period are barred by limitation.
12. Hence as per the provisions of Section 15(1) of DRC Act, respondent is directed to pay arrears of rent with effect from 1.8.2009 at the rate of Rs.2,000/ per month within a period of one month from today. E81/2012 Page No.5 of 6
13. The main file be consigned to record room and Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate miscellaneous file for the purpose of consideration of benefit under section 14(2) of DRC Act. Put up on 5.8.2013. A copy of this judgment be kept in the separate miscellaneous file.
(SUGANDHA AGGARWAL) ACJcumCCJcumARC North District : Rohini Announced in the open Court on this 3rd day of July, 2013 E81/2012 Page No.6 of 6