Delhi District Court
Anoop Kumar Aggarwal vs Rekha Gupta on 5 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided Over By: Sh. Bharat Aggarwal
Petition No. : RC ARC 728/2019
CNR No.: DLCT03-006827-2019
Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Anoop Kumar Aggarwal
s/o Late Sh. Sukhbir Saran Aggarwal,
r/o C-8/16, Model Town,
Delhi-110009.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Rekha Gupta
w/o Late Sh. Brahm Parkash
2. Ram Parkash
3. Paramod
Both sons of Late Sh. Om Parkash
All at: Shop in P. No. 2044-45,
HC Sain Road, Fountain,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
4. Mukesh Kumar (since deceased)
Through his LRs
(i) Manju Gupta (wife)
RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 1 of 25
Digitally signed
by BHARAT
AGGARWAL
BHARAT
Date:
AGGARWAL 2025.07.05
16:42:43
+0530
(ii) Ankit Gupta (son)
Both r/o: H. No. 90/91, Gali No.7,
Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar,
Delhi-110033.
(iii) Nupur Gupta (daughter)
w/o Sh. Akash Sachdeva
r/o H. No. 52, Block 53,
Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005.
All also at: Shop in P. No. 2044-45,
HC Sain Road, Fountain,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
...RESPONDENTS
Date of institution : 20.09.2019
Date of order : 05.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents under Section 14 (1) (a) and 14 (1) (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRC Act') in respect of premises i.e. ground floor in the property bearing no. 2044-45, H.C. Sen Road, Fountain, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006, as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenanted premises').
2. It is stated that the tenanted premises are commercial in nature and the monthly rent of the same is Rs.110/-, exclusive of electricity and other charges. The respondents are stated to be old RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 2 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:42:48 +0530 tenants in the property and it is alleged that they have caused substantial damage in the premises by digging the ground floor by 2.5 ft. approximately and by raising the height of tenanted premises and causing several additions and alterations without seeking consent of the petitioner/landlord.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents were not making the payment of rent regularly and they were in huge arrears of rent. Eventually, petitioner got served a legal notice dated 15.05.2019 asking the respondents to make payment of legally recoverable rent i.e. for 36 months prior to the date of issuance of notice within stipulated period as required under the DRC Act. It is stated that the notice was duly received by the respondents and they issued a reply containing a false plea that the cheque for the amount in question is attached with the reply, however, the same was not attached. It is stated that respondents were intimated by the petitioner regarding non-receipt of the alleged cheque and respondents have neither paid nor tendered the rent despite service of such statutory notice.
4. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondents made an application for deposit of rent under Section 27 of DRC Act, however, such deposit of rent was not as per the provisions of DRC Act and the same is an illegal deposit and respondents are defaulter in the matter of payment of rent. It is alleged that respondents are in arrears of rent for about 36 months prior to notice dated 15.05.2019 and they are liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,960/- alongwith interest for the period ending on 31.05.2019 and they are also liable to pay the house tax qua the tenanted RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 3 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:42:52 +0530 premises. Hence, it is the case of the petitioner that the deposit of rent by the respondents is without interest and not as per the provisions of the DRC Act. It is further stated that the respondents have admitted that they have made additions and alterations in the tenanted premises and have caused substantial damages therein.
5. It is stated that the permission for filing the present petition has been obtained by the landlord under Section 19 of the Slum Act vide order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the competent authority.
WRITTEN STATEMENT:
6. Upon filing of the present petition, summons were issued upon the respondents vide order dated 21.09.2019 and written statement was filed on behalf of respondents on 21.11.2019.
7. Respondents denied all the allegations in the written statement and it is alleged that the respondent has tendered the complete arrears of rent alongwith interest to the petitioner and the petitioner has raised a false plea of the cheque not being there with the reply to the notice. It is stated that irrespective of the same, respondents have deposited the complete arrears of rent alongwith interest in the court under Section 27 of DRC Act.
8. It is stated that the petition under Section 14 (1) (j) of the DRC Act is not maintainable as the respondents have not carried RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 4 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:42:57 +0530 out any additions or alterations to the tenanted premises nor caused any substantial damage. It is averred that the tenanted premises were taken on rent from Mr. Varinder Kumar Mota in the year 1985 and they are existing in the same condition and state as the respondents have not carried out any change and the petitioner has failed to give the exact date on which the damage has been caused to the tenanted premises.
9. It is stated that the rent was tendered to the petitioner a couple of times and finally alongwith the covering letter dated 07.02.2019, in which rent upto 28.02.2019 alongwith interest was tendered and upon the failure of the petitioner to deposit the cheque, rent was again deposited under Section 27 of DRC Act and the said petition was allowed by the court.
10. It is stated that despite such rent being deposited, petitioner with the intention of creating false grounds for eviction, issued notice dated 15.05.2019 and respondents sent a reply dated 18.05.2019 alongwith a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the demanded rent alongwith interest. It is alleged that petitioner refused and failed to encash the cheque of Rs.5,000/- and as a result, the said amount was deposited by the respondents under Section 27 of DRC Act in DR no. 107/19 decided vide order dated 28.09.2019.
11. It is alleged that the house tax is required to be paid by the owner of the property and the liability cannot be fastened upon the respondents/tenants.
RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 5 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:43:00 +0530
12. Replication was filed by the petitioner to the written statement filed by the respondents on 15.01.2020. In the replication so filed, it is stated that the deposit of rent by the respondents is not legal and the same was not made within time and without first tendering the rent to the petitioner. It is further stated that petitioner never refused any legal tender of rent and respondents have failed to disclose the date on which the rent was tendered and no cheque was found with the reply issued by the respondents. Rest of the averments of the replication were mere reiteration of the eviction petition and denials of the contentions made by the respondents in the written statement.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE:
13. Petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and relied upon his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.PW-1/A. PW-1 further relied upon the following documents in his testimony:
1. Ex. PW-1/1 being the certified copy of sale deed;
2. Ex. PW-1/2 being the certified copy of order of competent authority slum, tis Hazari Court of petition no. CA(DUSIB) 129/18, order dated 28.02.2019;
3. Ex. PW-1/3 being the photocopy of the legal notice dated 15.05.2019;
4. Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR) being the photocopies of postal receipts;
RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 6 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.07.05 16:43:04 +0530
5. Ex. PW-1/5 being the tracking report;
6. Ex. PW-1/6 being the reply dated 28.05.2019 to the legal notice dated 15.05.2019;
7. Ex. PW-1/7 being the site plan;
8. Ex. PW-1/8 being the certified copy of evidence of Sh. Ram Prakash in suit no.
E-401/17/13, new no. 79099/16;
9. Ex. PW-1/9 (OSR) being the copy of notice of DR petition bearing no. EX 1334/2019 in the court of Sh. Gajender Singh Nagar for the date of hearing of 28.09.2019;
10. Ex. PW-1/10 being the copy of objections filed in DR petition bearing no. 107/19;
11. Ex. PW-1/11 being the certified copy of notice bearing no.
Tax/HQ/SPL.Cell/WO/D-277/10293 dated 30.01.1992 sent by MCD.
12. Ex. PW-1/12 (OSR) being the intimation letter dated 19.04.1993;
13. Ex. PW-1/13 (OSR) being the photocopy of application dated 09.06.1997;
14. Ex. PW-1/14 (OSR) being the copy of order of MCD dated 10.07.1997 containing three page;
15. Ex. PW-1/15 (OSR) being the copy of order of the MCD bearing no.
Tax/CZ/2011/292 dated 09.08.2011; and RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 7 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:43:08 +0530
16. Ex. PW-1/16 (OSR) being the copy of no dues certificate of MCD bearing no.
Tax/CZ/2016/500 dated 08.09.2016.
Petitioner/PW-1 was cross-examined and discharged on 16.03.2023. No other witness was examined on behalf of petitioner.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:
14. On behalf of respondents, respondent no.2. Sh. Ram Prakash s/o Late Sh. Om Prakash was examined as RW-1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.RW-1/A. RW-1 further relied upon the following documents in his testimony:
1. Ex.RW-1/1 being the original deposit receipt of Rs.4600/- in DR case no. 434/19;
2. Ex.RW-1/2 being the certified copy of the order dated 04.10.2019 passed in DR no. 434/19;
3. Ex.RW-1/3 being the certified copy of reply dated 28.05.2019;
4. Ex.RW-1/4 & Ex.RW-1/5 being the certified copies of two postal receipts;
5. Ex.RW-1/6 and Ex.RW-1/7 being the two tracking reports;
6. Ex.RW-1/8 being the copy of cheque;
RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 8 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:43:12 +0530
7. Ex.RW-1/9 being the copy of application for deposit of rent for the preceding three years;
8. Ex.RW-1/10 being the original deposit receipt in the DR petition; and
9. Ex.RW-1/11 being the certified copy of order passed in the DR bearing no.
107/2019 (New DR no. 1334/2019).
RW-1 was cross-examined and discharged on 22.05.2024. No other evidence was led on behalf of respondents.
ARGUMENTS:
15. It was argued on behalf of petitioner that the case for grant of eviction order under Section 14 (1) (a) and (j) of DRC Act has been made out by the petitioner against the respondents as despite service of statutory legal notice dated 15.05.2019 Ex.PW-1/3, respondents never tendered any rent. On behalf of petitioner, it was further argued that the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties as well as the non-payment of due rent has duly been proved and accordingly the grounds for eviction under proviso (a) and (j) of Section 14 (1) of DRC Act have been made out.
16. It was vehemently argued on behalf of petitioner that the alleged mode of payment of rent through cheque by the respondents is not accepted under the principles of the DRC Act RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 9 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:43:15 +0530 and no efforts were made by the respondents to tender the rent personally or, in case of refusal, through money order. It was further argued that in case, the payment of rent is made in cash or through cheque, the tenant has to show an express or implied agreement between the parties to that effect and the rent tendered by the respondents in the present case is not a valid legal tender. Further, it was argued that the site plan filed by the petitioner shows that the respondents have dug the surface of the ground floor by 2.5 ft. thereby raising the height of the tenanted shop and making additions and alterations in the tenanted premises.
17. Per-contra, on behalf of the respondents, it was vehemently argued that the respondents have duly deposited the rent in the court under Section 27 of DRC Act for the period 01.02.2016 to 28.02.2019. It was further argued that a cheque of Rs.5,000/- was also sent alongwith the reply to the legal notice and the petitioner failed to encash the same. It is specifically argued that cheque bearing no. 000028 dated 27.05.2019 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006, for a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the rent till 31.05.2019 alongwith interest was sent with the reply dated 28.05.2019 Ex.PW-1/6.
18. Ld. Counsel for the respondents further argued that PW-1 alleged that only copy of the cheque was received with the reply dated 28.05.2019 and he admitted that rent were deposited for the period 01.02.2016 to 28.02.2019 in petition DR No. 434/19 and Rs.5,000/- was deposited in petition DR No. 1334/19. It was further argued that even otherwise, the rent has been duly RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 10 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.07.05 16:43:19 +0530 deposited in the court as the petitioner has deliberately not encashed the cheque of Rs.5,000/- sent alongwith the reply.
ANALYSIS WITH REASONING:
19. In order to secure a favourable order under Section 14 (1)
(a) of DRC Act, landlord/petitioner has to establish the following ingredients:
(i) That there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
(ii) That there are arrears of legally recoverable rent;
(iii) That a valid legal demand notice was duly served upon the respondent in accordance with Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882; and
(iv) That respondent has neither paid nor tendered the entire arrears of legally recoverable rent within two months of the date of receipt of such legal demand notice.
20. Now, the Court shall scrutinize the evidence led on record by the petitioner, in light of pleadings of parties, to ascertain if the aforesaid ingredients have been proved on record by the petitioner or not.
21. In the present case, the petitioner is required to establish two things in order to get a decree of eviction of the respondents from the tenanted premises. Firstly, that there exists a relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties and secondly, that despite service of statutory legal notice under proviso (a) of RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 11 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:43:23 +0530 Section 14 (1) of the DRC Act regarding non-payment of rent, no rent was tendered or paid by the respondents to the petitioner.
Subsistence of relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties
22. In order to establish the relationship of landlord-tenant, petitioner has substantially relied upon the sale deed Ex.PW-1/1. Such document has not been challenged or controverted to by the respondents. In fact, the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant is admitted by the respondents and no dispute qua the relationship between the parties has been raised. It is pertinent to mention that bare perusal of the pleadings and documents relied upon by the parties shows that respondents have clearly admitted their capacity of a tenant in the tenanted premises and no dispute qua the landlordship of the petitioner has been raised.
There are arrears of legally recoverable rent
23. It is the case of the petitioner that the rent of the tenanted premises was fixed at Rs.110/- per month exclusive of house tax and other charges and respondents were not making payment of rent regularly and were in huge arrears. It is further the case of the petitioner that due to the same, one statutory legal notice dated 15.05.2019 Ex.PW-1/3 was issued upon the respondents.
RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 12 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.07.05 16:43:28 +0530
24. It is pertinent to mention that in the said notice Ex.PW-1/3, it is inter-alia alleged that respondents have not paid rent for over three years immediately prior to the date of issuance of legal notice. Further, it is alleged that respondents are liable to pay arrears of rent for the period ending on 31.05.2019 amounting to Rs.3,960/- alongwith interest.
25. Respondent has, on the other hand, specifically averred in the written statement that the rent was tendered to the petitioner on couple of occasions and finally, it was tendered alongwith covering letter dated 07.02.2019 till the period 28.02.2019. It is further stated that as the petitioner failed to present the cheque, rent was deposited in the court under Section 27 of the DRC Act. In this regard, respondents have also relied upon the rent deposit petition i.e. DR 434/2019 filed in the court of Ld. Rent Controller, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, by the respondents/tenants. Bare perusal of such petition shows that rent was deposited for the period 01.02.2016 to 28.02.2019.
26. The initial onus was upon the petitioner to prove that the rent for the period stated in the legal notice i.e. for three years upto 31.05.2019 has not been paid or deposited by the respondent. Even though, prima facie, it appears that rent for the three years immediately preceding the legal notice dated Ex.PW-1/3 was legally recoverable, yet petitioner has not explained throughout the trial as to why the statutory notice was issued for such period, especially when the rent deposit petition under Section 27 of the DRC Act was filed by the respondents RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 13 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:43:33 +0530 for the overlapping period i.e. 01.02.2016 to 28.02.2019. It is not even the case of the petitioner that he did not receive notice of such petition for deposit of rent under section 27 of the DRC Act. In fact, during cross-examination of petitioner on 23.12.2022, he admitted that such DR petition Ex.RW-1/2 was filed and he received notice of the same.
27. Upon comprehensive perusal of the pleadings and documents, it is not clear as to whether the petitioner had notice of the aforesaid rent deposit / DR petition for the period 01.02.2016 to 28.02.2019 at the time of issuance of legal notice dated 15.05.2019 i.e. Ex.PW-1/3. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is no hesitation in concluding that petitioner deserves benefit of the doubt and hence, the period of rent claimed in the legal notice Ex.PW-1/3 can be construed to be arrears of rent which were legally recoverable.
Service of valid legal demand notice upon the respondent/tenant.
and Respondent has neither paid nor tendered the entire arrears of legally recoverable rent within two months of the date of receipt of such legal demand notice
28. PW-1 in his testimony relied upon the legal notice dated 15.05.2019 Ex.PW-1/3 issued upon respondents. It is pertinent to mention at the outset that receipt of such notice by the respondents have not been disputed and in fact the response dated 28.05.2019 Ex.PW-1/6 was issued by respondents through RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 14 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:43:37 +0530 their advocate to the Ld. Counsel for petitioner. Bare perusal of such response shows that the notice was received by the respondents on 20.05.2019 and it is inter-alia stated therein that the petitioner refused to receive the rent and the respondents have already deposited the rent in the court under Section 27 of the DRC Act.
29. Most importantly, it is averred in such response Ex.PW-1/6 issued on behalf of the respondents that a cheque bearing no.
000028 dated 27.05.2019 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards arrears of rent till 31.05.2019 (consisting of Rs.3,960/- towards rent for 36 months and Rs.1040/- towards interest @ 15 % per annum), has been enclosed. It was further stated therein that such enclosed cheque be handed over to the client of ld. Counsel/ addressee to avoid litigation.
30. It is the case of the petitioner that no such cheque was enclosed with the reply Ex.PW-1/6 and an intimation was given to the respondents regarding non-receipt of the alleged cheque. Whereas, the respondents have strongly argued that the original cheque was duly enclosed with the reply to the legal notice Ex.PW-1/6 and only to create a false and flimsy ground for eviction under Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act, it is alleged by the petitioner that the original cheque was missing.
31. The respondents have further argued that as the petitioner failed / refuse to encash the cheque of Rs.5,000/-, he filed another rent deposit / DR petition bearing DR no. 107/2019 RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 15 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:43:41 +0530 which was decided and disposed off by the court vide order dated 28.09.2019. Such rent deposit petition of the respondents for the period 01.06.2016 to 31.05.2019 has been filed on record as Ex.RW-1/11 and the order in respect of such DR petition is also filed on record. Therefore, it is the simple case of the respondents that the rent for the period stated in the notice i.e. 01.06.2016 to 31.05.2019 was duly deposited in the court by the respondents on 03.07.2019 i.e. as shown in challan in DR no. 107/2019 Ex.RW-1/10.
32. As a sequitur, the only argument of the petitioner in the present case is that since no cheque was furnished by the respondents in response to legal notice Ex.PW-1/3 and as the deposit of rent vide application Ex.RW-1/11 of Rs.5,000/- of under Section 27 of DRC Act was not proper, it can be concluded that respondents have neither tendered nor paid the arrears of rent stated in the legal notice. Per-contra, respondents have argued that petitioner, despite receipt of the original cheque, falsely claims non-receipt in order to create a ground for eviction. It was further argued that as the rent stood deposited in the court under Section 27 of DRC Act within the period of two months from the date of receipt of legal notice, no ground for eviction under Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act, is made out.
33. It is pertinent to note at the outset that petitioner, during his cross-examination, has duly admitted the receipt of the response dated 28.05.2019 from the counsel of the respondents. Petitioner alleges that he did not receive the original cheque, however, the said fact has remained unproved on record. From careful perusal RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 16 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:43:45 +0530 and analysis of the testimonies on record, it cannot be deduced that petitioner has duly proved the fact that respondents only enclosed a photocopy of the cheque and not the original cheque.
34. Even otherwise, it is quite absurd that the tenant would enclose only a photocopy of a cheque and rather have a sword hanging over his head as the same may give a ground for eviction to his landlord. Same is even more ludicrous as the same tenant then approaches the court and immediately deposits the amount of the cheque i.e. Rs.5,000/- in the court towards the rent of the same premises for which the cheque was issued. Thus, the circumstances only point to the fact that it is unlikely that the tenant would enclose a mere photocopy of the cheque and help his landlord in creating a good ground for his eviction. If the intention of the tenant was to save his money and deliberately avoid payment of rent, he would not have approached the court under Section 27 of the DRC Act in order to deposit the rent. Be that as it may, on a scale of preponderance of probabilities, petitioner has miserably failed to show that he received only copy of the cheque Ex.PW-1/R1.
35. Petitioner has also duly admitted that both the rent deposit petitions bearing no. 434/19 and 1334/19 for Rs.4,600/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively were received by him. He further admitted that he did not send any rebuttal reply to the petitioner stating that he has not received the cheque. Such circumstance prima facie, adds force to the argument of the respondents that original cheque was in fact sent by the petitioner. When the petitioner issued the legal notice Ex.PW-1/3, he could have easily RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 17 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:43:49 +0530 sent another notice / letter to the respondents/their counsel bringing it to their notice that inadvertently or perhaps deliberately, the original cheque was not enclosed with the reply dated 28.05.2019 Ex.PW-1/6. However, since admittedly, no such letter/notice was issued by or on behalf of the petitioner, it indeed appears that petitioner had the intention to file the instant petition for eviction, even though the statute offers an opportunity to the tenant to pay / tender the rent within two months of the receipt of the notice.
36. The respondents in these circumstances, were only required to prove in the present petition that the arrears of rent stated in the legal notice Ex.PW-1/3 were duly paid or tendered to the petitioner within a period of two months from its receipt. In this regard, RW-1 has most importantly relied upon Ex.RW-1/3 i.e. reply dated 28.05.2019 and the cheque for Rs.5,000/- i.e. Ex.PW-1/R1. Another essential document relied upon by the respondents is Ex.RW-1/10 i.e. challan deposit receipt in DR petition no. 107/19 for the period of 01.06.2016 to 31.05.2019 of Rs.5,000/-.
37. It is trite that deposit of rent under Section 27 of the DRC Act is a valid defense on behalf of the respondent/tenant to an eviction petition preferred by the landlord under Section 14 (1)
(a) of the DRC Act if such deposit has been made in accordance with Section 27 (1) of the DRC Act. Such provision inter-alia provides that the rent may be deposited by the tenant in the court when the landlord does not accept the rent or he refuses or neglects to deliver a receipt or when there is a bonafide doubt RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 18 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:43:53 +0530 about the person to whom the rent is payable. Reliance is placed upon the observations of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in B. D. Khanna Publicity Vs. Jalveen Rosha [CM(M) No. 62/2022 decided on 04.07.2022]. Therefore, it is trite that if the deposit of rent made by the tenant is in compliance of the Chapter IV of the DRC Act then the tenant would have a good defence to the eviction petition filed by the landlord on the ground of non- payment of rent under proviso (a) to Section 14(1).
38. Ld. Counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that the tender of rent by the respondent/tenant through cheque in the reply dated 28.05.2019 is not a valid tender. For such purpose, Ld. Counsel for petitioner also relied upon the observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Phalwant Singh Vs. Jai Narayan [18 (1980) DLT 360]. However, such observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are not applicable to the present case as the facts in that case are distinguishable from the present case. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a subsequent case, stated below, relying upon the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damadi Lal Vs. Parash Ram [AIR 1976 SC 2229] has observed that payment of rent through cheque shall constitute valid tender.
This court is not convinced with such argument made on behalf of the petitioner in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in B. R. Mehta Vs. Smt. Atma Devi [1989 (2) RCR 178], whereby it was inter- alia observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that payment of rent through cheque would amount to a valid tender of rent. The RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 19 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:43:58 +0530 relevant observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in this regard are reproduced below:
"19. The next question which has to be decided is whether the tender by cheque can be regarded as a valid render or not. The Rent Control Tribunal has come to the conclusion that tender by cheque cannot be regarded as a valid tender. In the modern day and age when most of the financial transactions are done either on the basis of the credit cards or by issuing cheques, it is surprising to note that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that issuing a cheque docs not amount to tendering payment of the rent. The payment of rent by cheque, after it is encashed, must be regarded as payment having been made in cash. If a 'cheque is tendered by the tenant to the landlord then it has to be regarded as payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord unless the cheque is not encashed. If the cheque which is tendered is not encashed then it would be deemed that no valid payment has ever been made by the tenant to the landlord. It may happen that the parties may expressely agree that the payment will be by a particular mode, namely, only by cash and by no other mean. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that the parties had agreed that payment could not be made by a cheque and the payment had always to be made by cash. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended before me that even earlier payments of rent used to be made by the tenant to the landlady by issuing cheques. That apart, unless and until the Court is satisfied that the only method of payment which was agreed to between the parties was by cash and not by cheque, the courts below were in error in coming to the conclusion that tendering of cheque could not be regarded as a valid payment. In this connection, reliance has been rightly placed by the learned counsel of the appellant on Kirloskar Bros. Ltd v. Comm. of Income-tax, Bombay, where a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the payment under a cheque relates back to the date of RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 20 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:44:03 +0530 the cheque and it is immaterial as to when the cheque is encashed. The matter is in any case now set at rest with the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Damadilal and others v. Parashram and others, where it was held that "rent is payable in the same manner as any other debt and the debtor has to pay his creditor in cash or other legal tender, but there can be no dispute that the mode of payment can be altered by agreement. In the contemporary society it is reasonable to suppose such agreement as implied unless the circumstances of a case indicate otherwise. In the circumstances of this case, the High Court, in our opinion, rightly held that the cheque sent to the plaintiffs amounted to valid tender of rent". (emphasis supplied)"
39. From the comprehensive perusal and analysis of the testimonies led on record, it cannot be inferred that there was any agreement between the parties that rent shall only be paid through a particular mode i.e. cash or demand draft, etc. Petitioner has failed to lead any specific evidence on this aspect that rent could not have been tendered by the respondent/tenant through a cheque. It is not the case of the petitioner that the amount of rent so tendered or deposited by the respondent in the present case, either in the cheque i.e. Ex.PW-1/R1 or through the deposit made in the court under Section 27 of the DRC Act, was insufficient.
40. The respondent has duly shown to the court the contents of the response Ex.PW-1/6 to the legal notice which shows that the cheque was enclosed by the tenant. The tenant has also duly shown such dispatch of the response to the petitioner/landlord and in fact, petitioner has also admitted receipt of the response.
RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 21 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:44:07 +0530 In such circumstances, it is not clear as to why the landlord/petitioner did not intimate the tenant about absence of the original cheque and such intimation, if any, has remained unproved on record.
41. As a matter of due caution and to avoid the rigors of proviso (a) to Section 14 (1) of DRC Act, the tenant/respondent duly deposited the rent before the court in the petition under Section 27 of the DRC Act which was also allowed by the court vide order dated 28.09.2019. It is the admitted case of the petitioner/landlord that such order was never challenged on behalf of the petitioner. Even though it was argued that deposit of rent by the landlord was not in accordance with law, yet such submission of the petitioner was unfounded as the statute, more specifically under Section 27 (1) of the DRC Act provides an opportunity to the tenant to deposit the rent where the landlord does not accept or refuses to deliver a receipt.
42. At this juncture, certain more observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in B. R. Mehta Vs. Smt. Atma Devi [1989 (2) RCR 178] are required to be reproduced as follows:
"22. The respondent-landlady has denied the receipt of the cheque. Both the tenant and the landlady live in the same house, the tenant lives on the ground floor and the landlady on the first floor. The tenant has placed on record a Certificate of Posting showing the dispatch of a letter to the landlady in November, 1986. The tenant has also placed on record a photo copy of the cheque which was sent. According to the tenant he was to take precaution of taking photo copies of all the letters RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 22 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:44:11 +0530 and cheques which he used to sent to the landlady. The Add). Rent Controller has, inter alia, held that the tenant has not placed on record the envelope in which the cheque was sent nor has the cheque been placed on record. It is evident that once a cheque is dispatched in an envelope under Certificate of Posting, neither the envelope nor the original cheque can be in the custody of the sender. If the cheque was sent under Certificate of Posting, as has been alleged in the present case, the only proof which could have been submitted by the tenant was to place on record the Certificate of Posting. The tenant in the present case has placed on record the Certificate of Posting, showing dispatch of a letter to the landlady in November, 1986. There is nothing on record which can possibly persuade me to disbelieve the genuineness of the Certificate of Posting. I cannot presume that litigants do obtain, by unscrupulous means, false certificate of posting. Sending letter under certificate of posting is a recognised way and method and unless there is any evidence on record to disprove the genuineness thereof, the Court cannot presume that a certificate of posting produced in court of law has to be disregarded. Be that as it may, in the present case the tenant in fact deposited the rent on 2nd January, 1987. As on that day the tenant was not aware of the execution application having been filed by the landlady. The execution application was filed by the landlady on 24th December, 1986 but notice was directed to be issued by the court only vide its order dated 5th January, 1987, 3 days before the notice was directed to be issued, the entire arrears of rent had been deposited in Court by the tenant. This act of the tenant leads me to believe that it could not have been the intention of the tenant not to pay the areas of rent and thereby suffer a decree for eviction being executed. I am unable to come to the conclusion that the story put forth by the tenant is a false one. In my opinion, therefore, the terms of the order dated 22nd October, 1986 have in fact been complied with the tenant having sect the cheque for the arrears of rent under Certificate of Posting on RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 23 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.07.05 16:44:16 +0530 17th November, 1986. In this view of the matter, the question whether the delay should be condoned or not does not arise."
43. This court is of the considered opinion that the immediate deposit of rent by the tenant/respondent on 03.07.2019 i.e. within two months of the receipt of the legal notice prima facie shows that the intention of the tenant was not to avoid his liability regarding payment of rent. In order to make out a case for eviction under proviso (a) to Section 14 (1) of DRC Act, it is incumbent upon the landlord to prove that neither the rent was paid nor tendered within two months of receipt of legal notice. However, in the present case, the respondent has duly proved deposit of rent in the court within such time period. Thus, the petitioner has miserably failed to make out any ground for eviction of the respondent under Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act.
44. As regards the allegation of the petitioner qua substantial damage to the property by the tenant/respondent, more specifically by digging ground floor by 2.5 ft. and by raising the height of the shop, no evidence whatsoever has been led by the petitioner in this regard. It is the admitted case of the petitioner as revealed from the testimony of PW-1 that the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence in the form of photographs of the tenanted premises prior to occupation of the same by the respondent. Petitioner has also not lodged any complaint with the municipality or police regarding such alleged damage caused to the tenanted premises by the tenant/respondent. In fact, perusal of evidence led on record by the petitioner would show that no RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 24 of 25 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:44:20 +0530 specific evidence has been led by the petitioner to prove the allegations of substantial damage and the focus of the petitioner throughout the trial has remained on non-payment of rent. Hence, due to lack of any evidence, there is no hesitation in concluding that petitioner has failed to satisfy the requirement of eviction of the tenant under proviso (j) to Section 14 (1) of the DRC Act.
CONCLUSION:
45. In view of the above discussion, the present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (a) & (j) is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
46. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.07.05 16:44:25 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Bharat Aggarwal) Today i.e. 05.07.2025 ACJ-cum-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
Present judgment consists of 25 pages and each page bears my initials.
Digitally signedby BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.07.05 16:44:29 +0530 (Bharat Aggarwal) ACJ-cum-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 05.07.2025 RC ARC No. 728/19 Anoop Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Page No. 25 of 25