Delhi District Court
Onkar Singh vs Paramjit Singh on 31 March, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT CONTROLLER
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
Unique Case Identification No. 02403C0048602000
Eviction Petition (Old) No. 1017/06/2000
Eviction Petition (New) No. E67/08
Onkar Singh,
S/o Shri Kartar Singh,
R/o 41B, Masjid Moth,
DDA Flats, PhaseI,
New Delhi 110048 ... Petitioner
Vs.
Paramjit Singh,
S/o Shri Bakshish Singh,
R/o E40, Karbala,
New Delhi 110003 ... Respondent
A. Date of institution
of the petition : 25.09.2000
B. Date of conclusion
of final arguments
& fixing the matter
for orders : 22.03.2010
C. Date of Judgment : 31.03.2010
D. Final Order : Petition dismissed
Application for eviction of tenant u/s 14 (1) (a) of IInd Default under D.R.C. Act.
Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC/New Delhi Eviction Petition (Old) No. 1017/06/2000 Eviction Petition (New) No. E67/08 Page 1/13 J u d g m e n t This eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of IInd default has been filed by the petitioner (landlord) against the respondent (tenant) with a prayer for passing an eviction order in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent with regard to premises no. E.40, Karbala, New Delhi as shown "red" in the site plan.
2. In brief case of the petitioner against the respondent is that petitioner filed an eviction petition against the respondent under Section 14(1) (a), (c) &
(j) which was disposed of by the court of Shri K.S. Pal, ld. A.R.C., Delhi, vide order dated 21.05.97 vide which the petition on the ground of Section 14(1)
(a) was allowed and benefit u/s 14 (2) of the D.R.C. Act was given to the respondent.
As per the petitioner, as per abovesaid order rent of the tenanted premises was held to be Rs. 85/ PM. As alleged, thereafter the petitioner served a notice dated 10.06.2000 (it should be 10.06.1997) to the respondent calling the respondent to pay the rent by increasing at the rate of 10% as permissible u/s 6A of the DRC Act i.e. @ Rs.93.50 paise, but respondent did not pay the rent and thus the petitioner filed a petition for eviction on 2nd default, vide Eviction Petition No. E219/98 but the said Eviction Petition was dismissed by the court of Ms. Kiran Nath, the then RC Delhi vide her order dated 5.08.99.
As per respondent, petitioner served a fresh notice dated 29th May, 2000 calling upon the respondent to pay the rent from September 1997 onwards to the petitioner or the rent outstanding but inspite service of the notice, the respondent neither paid nor tendered the rent from Sept., 1997 onwards @ Rs.93.50 paise per month and has committed the IInd default under the law. Hence this petition for eviction.
3. In his Written Statement of defence, respondent has taken certain preliminary objections, such as that the present petition is legally not Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC/New Delhi Eviction Petition (Old) No. 1017/06/2000 Eviction Petition (New) No. E67/08 Page 2/13 maintainable, as no requisite notice of demand has ever been served upon the respondent. As alleged/submitted, the relevant and complete particulars have not been furnished in paragraph 18(b) of the Petition and it has also not been shown as to how and in what manner the requisite notice has been served. Further, as alleged, the petitioner has further deliberately made false averments in Para 18(a) of the petition respecting service of notice and no notice dated June 10, 2000 has ever been served upon the respondent. Also no notice dated May 29, 2000 has ever been served upon the respondent. Further it has not been shown as to how and in what manner these notices were sent to the respondent and when did the respondent receive the said alleged notices. As per respondent at no point of time any notice muchless a notice dated June 10, 2000 and notice dated May 29, 2000, have ever been either tendered to or served upon the respondent. Further, as alleged, petitioner has also not placed upon record any proof of either dispatch or service of any such notice. As per respondent, A.D. Card has been placed on the record, which bears no signatures and no proof of posting and no reliance can be placed upon any such alleged A.D. Card.
Further, respondent has alleged that petitioner had filed an earlier petition for eviction of the respondent under Section 14(1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, describing the same to be a case of second default, being eviction Petition No.219 of 1998 of the Court of Smt. R. Kiran Nath, Rent Controller, Delhi. In the above petition the petitioner had alleged that the petitioner had sent a notice dated June 10, 1997 to the respondent, demanding arrears of rent and also rent at the rate of Rs.93.50 paise per month by increasing the rent as permissible under Section 6A of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The respondent resisted the said petition, amongst others, on the ground that no notice of either demand or increase had been served upon the respondent and that the petition was not maintainable. The said petition was dismissed by Smt. R. Kiran Nath, Rent Controller, Delhi vide judgment dated August 5, 1999 holding that the petitioner had failed to show that any notice of demand had either been sent or served upon the respondent. The ld. Rent Controller also concluded that on the alleged date of the notice, there were no arrears of rent and as such no demand could have Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC/New Delhi Eviction Petition (Old) No. 1017/06/2000 Eviction Petition (New) No. E67/08 Page 3/13 been raised. As per respondent after the said petition, again there has been no demand raised by the petitioner and this petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone.
As per respondent, the petitioner has, apparently with malafide intentions, concealed from the Court that the eviction petition dismissed by Shri K.S. Pal, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, being eviction petition NO.210 of 1986, which had been filed by the present petitioner and Smt. Manjeet Kaur. Smt. Manjeet Kaur has since died. Smt. Manjeet Kaur was entitled to half of the rent of Rs.85/ per month payable by the respondent and the petitioner alone could neither demand nor sue for the eviction of the respondent by himself. Even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments, though not admitted that the alleged notice was sent by the petitioner to the respondent, the notice being by the petitioner alone and not by the Legal Representative of Smt. Manjeet Kaur also, the notice of demand is bad ab initio and no cause of action could be based upon the said alleged notice.
As per respondent the heirs and legal representatives of Smt. Manjeet Kaur are necessary parties to the present petition and in the absence of the Legal Representatives of Smt. Manjeet Kaur, the present petition is legally not maintainable.
As alleged, even after May, 1997 the respondent has been tendering rent to the petitioner as well as Smt. Manjeet Kaur in equal proportions, but the petitioner as well as Smt. Manjeet Kaur continued declining to accept the same. As per respondent it was in this context that the petitioner stopped spending money in tendering the rent to the petitioner as well as Smt. Manjeet Kaur through money order and the petitioner is estopped from claiming that the rent was not paid by the respondent.
As per respondent, it appears that the petitioner has fabricated evidence for the purpose of projecting service of notice upon the respondent. As alleged on or about June 10, 2000, the respondent received an envelope, purported to have been sent Under Certificate of Posting by one Shri Ram Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC/New Delhi Eviction Petition (Old) No. 1017/06/2000 Eviction Petition (New) No. E67/08 Page 4/13 Singh Soni, Advocate, Chamber No.194, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The envelope bore the postal receipt bearing the date June 8, 2000. However, on opening the said envelope, the same was found totally empty. The respondent immediately on June 10, 2000 itself, through his counsel posted a communication to Shri Ram Singh Soni, Advocate at his address informing him that the envelope received by the respondent was totally empty and there were no papers therein. A request was made to the said Shri Ram Singh Soni, Advocate, to post to the respondent's Counsel the communication which Shri Ram Singh Soni intended to sent to the respondent through the said envelope. Shri Ram Singh Soni, Advocate was further advised that if no such communication is sent to the counsel for the Respondent, the Respondent would be entitled to presume that some client of his was attempting to create some false evidence against the respondent. Shri Ram Singh Soni, Advocate, was further informed that the respondent would not be bound by any such evidence in any manner whatsoever. The said communication was posted through Speed Post Receipt No.EE000064845 on June 10, 2000 itself. As alleged, no communication was received by either the respondent or his Counsel from Shri Ram Singh Soni, Advocate, in response to the same. Further although no A.D. Card was received back in respect of the communication sent to Shri Ram Singh Soni, Advocate, yet the same is presumed to have been served in as much as even the envelope containing the said communication was never received back by either the Counsel for the respondent or the respondent. Seeing from any angle the present petition is legally not maintainable.
On merits there is no dispute regarding identification/number/address of the tenanted premises. Also description of tenanted premises as given in paragraph 8 of the Eviction Petition has been admitted to be substantially correct.
As per respondent, it has been held that both the present petitioner and Smt. Manjeet Kaur were the landlords of the property in question. Since Smt. Manjeet Kaur has died, her legal heirs have also become landlords.
Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC/New Delhi Eviction Petition (Old) No. 1017/06/2000 Eviction Petition (New) No. E67/08 Page 5/13 As per respondent, it is denied that the rate of rent is Rs.93.50 Paise as alleged and the rental payable by the respondent is Rs.85/ per month, as has been so held by the Court of Shri K. S. Pal, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. Further the appeal filed by the present petitioner, being Appeal No.432 of 1997 has been dismissed by Shri G. P. Thareja, Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi vide his judgment dated December 11, 2001.
It is stated that alongwith present petitioner Smt. Manjeet Kaur was also the petitioner in the said aforementioned eviction petition No.E120 of 1986 of the Court of Shri K.S. PAL, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.
On merits as well as, respondent has reiterated the preliminary objections which deals with factual matrix of the case. As per respondent, present petition proceeds on total wrong presumptions that this is a case of second default. As submitted, the petition having been dismissed on the ground that there was no valid notice of demand served upon the respondent by the petitioner therein, there was no question of extending any benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act to the present respondent.
With these averments/submissions respondent has prayed for dismissal of the eviction petitioner with cost.
4. Petitioner has filed replication to the Written Statement of the respondent, wherein petitioner has denied the averments made in the Written Statement and has reaffirmed the averments made in eviction petition.
5. To substantiate its case on judicial file, petitioner himself appeared in the witness box as PW1 Mr. Onkar Singh. Vide order 06.05.04 the case was adjourned for RPE. In the respondent's evidence, respondent himself appeared in the witness box as RW1 by filing his detailed affidavit Ex. RW1/A. Also respondent has examined RW2 Mr. Devender Hani, S/o Murlidhar, Asstt. Superintendent of Post Offices, New Delhi. On 04.12.07, respondent's evidence was closed by Sh. K. K. Bhuchar, Adv. for respondent by making a separate statement to that effect.
Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC/New Delhi Eviction Petition (Old) No. 1017/06/2000 Eviction Petition (New) No. E67/08 Page 6/13
6. Vide order dated 04.08.2009 I have heard Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, Adv. for the petitioner and Sh. K. K. Bhuchar, Adv. for the respondent. On that day counsel for the petitioner had submitted that he would like to file written submissions. Thereafter on 01.10.2009 ld. counsel for the petitioner had filed two case laws reported as India Umberalla Manufacturing Co. & Ors. Vs. Bhagabandai Aggarwala (dead) through LR's Savitri Aggarwala (Smt. & Ors.) (2004)3 SCC 178 and Makham Singh Vs. Sh. Mohd. Khurshid & Ors., 2005 I AD (Delhi) 117 and as counsel for the petitioner intended to file written arguments, matter was adjourned. Vide order dated 13.01.2010 last and final opportunity was given to counsel for the petitioner to file the written submissions. However, on 04.03.2010 counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no instructions from the petitioner and in this regard he had placed on record copy of one letter written by him to the petitioner and dispatched under UPC. The said letter was dispatched to the petitioner on 11.01.2010. On 04.03.2010 matter was adjourned to 22.03.2010, so that counsel for the petitioner could have instructions from the petitioner. Further in the order dated 04.03.2010 it was observed that on the adjourned dated i.e. 22.03.2010 whatever may be the circumstances this court shall proceed with the hearing of arguments. But neither on 22.03.2010 nor on 29.03.2010 nor today anybody has appeared on behalf of petitioner. Petitioner can be presumed to have been served with the letter dispatched by the counsel for the petitioner on 11.01.2010 through UPC in the normal course of postal business. But still petitioner has not been able to appear before the court or give instructions to his ld. counsel. It so appears that petitioner is bothered least about the present matter. In these circumstances when matter is at the stage of final arguments and both the parties have already lead evidence and even the counsel for the petitioner have been heard once, this court have the discretion to dispose of the present matter on merits even in the absence of the petitioner, in view of case law reported as Prakash Manchanda & Anr. Vs. Smt. Janki Manchanda, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 42, wherein it has been ruled as under:
"6........................................... The explanation to R. 2 gives a discretion to the Court to proceed under R. 3 even if a party is absent but that discretion Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC/New Delhi Eviction Petition (Old) No. 1017/06/2000 Eviction Petition (New) No. E67/08 Page 7/13 is limited only in cases where a party which is absent has led some evidence or has examined substantial part of their evidence. ....................................."
In the present case both the parties and particularly the petitioner has already led his entire evidence and case is fixed for final arguments. Hence this court in exercise of its discretion as observed herein above wishes to dispose of the matter forthwith on merits. In the present case counsel for the petitioner had also placed on record one case law reported as Sarla Goel & Ors. Vs. Kishan Jain, Civil Appeal No. 4162/2009 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 08.07.2009.
7. The present eviction petition has been contested by the respondent substantially on two grounds. Ground No. 1 present eviction petition filed by Mr. Onkar Singh without impleading the LR's of deceased Ms. Manjit Kaur, who is wife of the present petitioner and was one of the petitioners alongwith the present petitioner in the eviction petition No. E210/86 decided by Sh. K.S. Paul, the then ld. ARC, Delhi vide his order dated 21.05.1997, has not been impleaded as parties in the present eviction petition. As per petitioner Onkar Singh said Smt. Manjit Kaur has already expired much prior to filing of the present eviction petition and now she is survived by petitioner as well as one son and two daughters. However, one of the daughter namely Mrs. Kamal Preet Kaur has died in June,2000. It has been vehementally argued on behalf of the respondent in the judgment passed by Sh. K.S. Paul, the then ld. ARC, Delhi it was held that there exist relationship of landlord and tenant between both the petitioners in the said eviction petitioner and the respondent herein and thus, after the death of Mrs. Manjit Kaur, her LR's are entitled to be substituted in her place as landlords of the tenanted premises. Sh. K.S. Paul, the then ld. ARC Delhi in his judgment dated 21.05.97 had observed as under:
"8...................... Since relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioners and respondent has been proved on record and as such amount deposited by the respondent in compliance with orders passed under section 15 (4) of the Act by the ld. RCT can be withdrawn by the petitioner".
Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC/New Delhi Eviction Petition (Old) No. 1017/06/2000 Eviction Petition (New) No. E67/08 Page 8/13 Perusal of the evidence led in eviction petition No. E210/86 reveals that one Smt. Pritam Kaur was the original allotee of the tenanted premises and petitioner Mr. Onkar Singh had purchased the same from Smt. Pritam Kaur and with this regard Smt. Pritam Kaur had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner herein. Further, Smt. Pritma Kaur had executed one Power of Attorney in favour of Mrs. Manjit Kaur, so that Mrs. Manjit Kaur W/o present petitioner could execute documents in favour of the present petitioner ( her husband) on behalf of the seller Mrs. Pritam Kaur. Further, it has come in the evidence of Smt. Majit Kaur that tenanted premises were let out to the respondent by her husband namely Mr. Onkar Singh in the year 1964. The above discussion suggests that Mrs. Majit Kaur did not have any personal interest in the tenanted premises, but petitioner (Mr. Onkar Singh), who had purchased the tenanted premises from its allotee namely Mrs. Pritam Kaur, had obtained attorney from Mrs. Pritam Kaur in the name of the wife of the petitioner namely Mrs. Manjit Kaur, so that Mrs. Manjit Kaur could execute documents in favour of the present petitioner on behalf of the seller Mrs. Pritam Kaur. To my mind the rights if any possessed by Mrs. Manjit Kaur as attorney of the original allotee Mrs. Pritam Kaur are not of such a nature which can be inherited by her LR's. To my mind with the death of Mrs. Manjit Kaur rights of Mrs. Manjit Kaur in the tenanted premises as attorney of Ms. Pritam Kaur ceased to exist absolutely. In the above factual background, in my opinion, present petition cannot be said to be not maintainable on account of non impleadment of LR's of deceased Mrs. Manjit Kaur as parties to the present eviction petition. Thus, to my mind. present eviction petition filed only by the petitioner herein namely Mr. Onkar Singh is maintainable.
Ground No. 2 Second ground on which present eviction petition has been contested by the respondent is that respondent was not served with the notice of demand EX. PW1/D dated 29.05.2000 which was dispatched to the respondent vide Ex. PW1/E (Regd. Postal Receipts ) and Ex. PW1/F, the UPC. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that the envelope sent through UPC was an empty envelope and after receiving the said empty envelope counsel for the respondent had written a letter Ex. R 4 dated 10.06.2000 dispatched through postal receipt Ex. R5, but same was not Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC/New Delhi Eviction Petition (Old) No. 1017/06/2000 Eviction Petition (New) No. E67/08 Page 9/13 responded by Sh. Ram Singh Soni, Adv. for the petitioner who had issued notice Ex. PW1/D and therefore it can be said that respondent was not served with the notice Ex. PW1/D sent through UPC. In reply to the same stand of the petitioner is that respondent had infact received the notice Ex. PW1/D through UPC and stand as above taken by the respondent is false and after thought. Further as per the petitioner postal receipt Ex. R5 is forged and fabricated. Further it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent did not take the delivery of the notice Ex. PW1/D dispatched through Regd. A.D. envelope because respondent stood already served with the said notice which was dispatched through UPC. Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent intentionally avoided to take delivery of the said Regd. A.D. envelope containing the notice Ex. PW1/D and therefore the said Regd. A.D. envelope was received back with the "unclaimed".
In order to succeed an getting on eviction order against the respondent/ tenant, a petitioner / landlord is supposed to prove on judicial file all the requisite ingredients for making out the ground of the eviction by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. In the present case one of the essential requirement for succeeding in getting an eviction order against the respondent is that petitioner is to satisfy the court that respondent was served with the statutory demand notice Ex. PW1/D. As regards the notice sent through UPC respondent has taken his specific defence as detailed herein above and to prove the said defence he has proved on record letter written by the counsel for the respondent to the counsel for the petitioner as Ex. R4, which was dispatched through postal receipt Ex. R5. The requisite details of Ex. R5 were given by the respondent in his written statement, but despite the said factum petitioner has not been able to prove on record that the said receipt is a forged and fabricated receipt. The petitioner in this regard has simplicitor given bald suggestions in this regard to the respondent in the course of his cross examination which does not serve any purpose whatsoever. The petitioner herein, even has not deposed that he himself had dispatched the envelope containing the notice Ex. PW1/D through UPC and the said envelope as a matter of fact contained the statutory demand notice Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC/New Delhi Eviction Petition (Old) No. 1017/06/2000 Eviction Petition (New) No. E67/08 Page 10/13 Ex. PW1/D. In this regard petitioner has deposed that he had instructed Sh. Ram Singh Soni, Adv. to send a notice of demand to the respondent. Further he has deposed that he was not aware as to with what mode the notice was with the respondent by Sh. Ram Singh Soni, Adv. Further he has deposed that he did not post any notice to the respondent with his own hands. He is not even aware as to from which post office notice addressed to the respondent was posted. Further, petitioner in all fairness has deposed that his statement in his affidavit that the notice was sent through certificate of posting, was on the basis of information supplied to him by Sh. Ram Singh Soni, Adv. Further, petitioner in his cross examination has deposed that he is not aware if Sh. Ram Singh Soni, Adv. is in Delhi or not. Further, petitioner herein is not very sure as to when he had met Mr. Ram Singh Soni for the last time.
Present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner through an advocate, other than Mr. Ram Singh Soni, Advocate. In this view of the matter, to my mind to prove that the envelope sent through UPC did contain the notice Ex. PW1/D petitioner must have atleast attempted to examine Mr. Ram Singh Soni Adv. as a witness to prove the dispatch of notice through UPC or to prove that letter Ex. R4 was a forged letter, which was never received by Mr. Ram Singh Soni, Adv., but it has not been so done by the petitioner. To my mind sufficient material has not been brought on record by the petitioner on the judicial file to conclude that receipt Ex. R5 or letter Ex. R4 are forged and fabricated documents. In these circumstances to my mind there do exist substantial doubt as regards service of the respondent with the notice Ex. PW1/D through UPC and respondent cannot be taken to have been served with the notice Ex. PW1/D through UPC.
Further, in my opinion, keeping in view the stand taken by the respondent, the petitioner herein was under an obligation to examine somebody from the postal authorities to prove that Regd. A.D. envelope containing the notice Ex. PW1/D was as a matter of fact tendered to the respondent, who intentionally avoided to take the delivery of the said envelope, but petitioner did not do so.
Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC/New Delhi Eviction Petition (Old) No. 1017/06/2000 Eviction Petition (New) No. E67/08 Page 11/13 As per case law reported as Lalmani Ramnath Tiwari Vs. Bhimrao Govind Pawar 2000 A IHC 2125 (Bombay High Court) when a notice sent by registered post was received back by the landlord with postal endorsement "
Not claimed", it cannot be treated to be one of refusal. Also as per case law reported as Jagat Ram Khullar & Anr. Vs. Bttu Mal, AIR 1976 Delhi III, after the depositions on oath by respondent that he (respondent) was not attempted to be served with regd. A.D. envelope containing the notice Ex. Pw1/D, onus shifted to the petitioner, to prove/establish the actual tender refusal to accept delivery ( in this case the factum of "unclaimed"), interalia, by producing the postman concerned. But in this case petitioner has not discharged this on us.
Respondent in this regard has examined RW2 Mr. Devender Mani, Asst. Superintendent of Post Office, New Delhi South Division, New Delhi. RW 2 Mr. Devender Mani has deposed that there is always a cancellation stamp for the post received at a post office through registered A.D. post. Further, he has deposed that the receiving post office would definitely put its stamp on the article. A careful perusal of Ex. PW1/G reveals that it does not bear any stamp of Lodhi Road Head Post Office which was supposed to deliver the envelope Ex. PW1/G to the respondent as is there on the U.P.C envelope Ex.R3 on its back side. Both the postal seals on front portion of Ex.PW1/G are dated 08.06.2000 and the said seals are same as are there on the UPC Ex. PW1/f and registry postal receipt Ex. PW1/E which pertain to the Patiala House, New Delhi. Even on the back side of Ex. PW1/G there is a seal which also pertain to New Delhi post office, dated 24.06.2000. There is no seal of the Lodhi Road Head Post Office. As already observed petitioner has not examined anybody from the Lodhi Road Head Post Office to prove that the envelope Ex. 1/G ever reached the said post office or that it was as a matter of fact attempted to be served on the respondent and that respondent avoided to take the delivery thereof resulting in returning of the envelope Ex. PW1/G as "unclaimed".
In view of above discussion, it can be said that petitioner has failed to prove /establish on judicial file that as a matter of fact, envelope Ex. PW1/G Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC/New Delhi Eviction Petition (Old) No. 1017/06/2000 Eviction Petition (New) No. E67/08 Page 12/13 was tendered for service/ attempted to be served on the respondent. Thus, respondent cannot be said/ deemed to have been served with notice Ex. PW1/D, through regd. A.D. envelope Ex. PW1/G. In the absence of service/ deemed service of notice Ex. PW1/D, on the respondent, this petition under section 14(1) (a) IInd default cannot be said to be maintainable & the same merits dismissal. Case law of Sarla Goel is of no help to petitioner herein, in as much as the question of deposit of arrears of rent in court would arise if and only if petitioner is able to satisfy the court regarding service of respondent with notice Ex. PW1/D and not otherwise.
8. Respondent has shown the original challan vide which rent was deposited by him in court pursuant to order dated 12.03.2003. Photocopy of the said challans has been kept on record. Petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the rent so deposited by the respondent.
9. In view of the above detailed discussion, in my considered opinion, this petition under section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act 1958 for the 2nd default merits dismissal & the same is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. File be consigned to R.R. (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) SCJCumRC/New Delhi 31.03.2010 Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC/New Delhi Eviction Petition (Old) No. 1017/06/2000 Eviction Petition (New) No. E67/08 Page 13/13