Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sh. Ved Parkash Vohra vs Sh. Madan Lal on 5 August, 2010

E. No.1306/06                     1

          IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH GUPTA:
  ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER: NORTH-WEST:ROHINI: DELHI


E.No. 1306/06

Sh. Ved Parkash Vohra,
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Vohra,
R/o B-142, Daya Nand Colony,
Lajpat Nagar,
Delhi-110024.
                                        .............. Petitioner

Versus


Sh. Madan Lal,
R/o CP-98 (FF),
Pitampura,
New Delhi-110034.

Second address:
C/o New Delhi Uklana Rajasthan Transport
Company Ltd.,
Shop No.11, Jain Market,
Alipur, G. T. Karnal Road,
Delhi-110042.

                                        ................ Respondent

                                Date of Institution: 16-12-2006
                                 Date of Decision: 04-8-2010
JUDGEMENT:

1. This is an eviction petition under section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act, Contd..........

1958.

2. The tenanted premises in question is bearing No. CP-98, First Floor, Pitampura, New Delhi-34. The petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant with respect to the said premises. The premises are residential in nature and the same consists of two bed rooms, one drawing dining room, one bath, one lavatory, one kitchen and lobby on first floor as shown in red colour in the site plan as mentioned in the petition. It is further mentioned in the petition that the rate of rent is Rs.3,000/- per month besides electricity as per the Department meter and Rs.50/- as water consumption charges.

3. It is further mentioned that premises were let out in the year 1990 by petitioner to the respondent but no rent agreement was executed between the parties. It is further mentioned that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the property in question and the entire first floor of the said property No. CP-98, Pitampura, New Delhi was rented out to the respondent in the year 1990. It is further mentioned that the tenancy was oral and it was commencing from 1st day of each English Calender Contd..........

month and ending on the last day of the same English Calender month and the rent was also being paid accordingly upto 31-3-2005. In para 18 (a) (iv) the petitioner has mentioned the details of the rent paid i.e. the period for which the rent paid, mode of payment, the amount of rent paid and the date of its payment. The same covers the period from 01- 01-2003 to 31-3-2005 and all the payments are in the sum of Rs.3,000/- each. The date of last payment is 29-4-2006 and all the payments are through cheques except for two times which are through money orders.

4. It is further mentioned that the respondent has paid the rent @ Rs.3000/- per month till 31-3-2005 to the petitioner and has failed to pay or tender the whole of the arrears of rent legally due from him for the period from 01-04-2005 till date inspite of the notice dated 23-8-2006 and corrigendum dated 18-9-2006, within two months of the date of service of notice. It is further mentioned that the respondent is liable to pay Rs.54,000/- being arrears of rent upto 30-9-2006 @ Rs.3000/- per month and thereafter from 01-10-2006 at the increased rate of Contd..........

Rs.3300/- per month on account of permissible 10% increase after due notice for which statutory notice was duly served.

5. It is further mentioned in the petition that the notice of demand was served on respondent through registered AD as well as by UPC. It is mentioned that the notice dated 23-8-2006 and a corrigendum dated 18-9-2006 were served upon the respondent. In these circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for an eviction order under section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act against the respondent with respect to the tenanted premises in question.

6. The respondent has filed the reply to the petition in which it is mentioned that it is wrong that the monthly rent of the premises is Rs. 3000/- per month. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not disputed by the respondent. In the reply it is mentioned that the premises were taken on rent on 15-6-91 @ Rs.800/- per month excluding electricity and Rs.50/- per month as water charges. It is further mentioned that the respondent paid the rent upto 31-12-2002 @ Rs.1065/- per month and thereafter the petitioner requested the Contd..........

respondent that he is a government servant and has to show the income on record for the Income Tax purpose and, therefore, he may be paid an amount of Rs.3000/- per month by way of cheques for two years and thereafter the excess amount of rent paid during that period shall be adjusted on subsequent payment of rent of the premises and, therefore, the respondent who was the tenant for the past more than 11 years and had developed family relationship with the petitioner, agreed to his requirement and helped him out to give cheque of Rs.3000/- from the month of January, 2003. It is denied that the respondent has been irregular in payment of rent. The respondent has denied the service of notice dated 23-8-2006 or corrigendum dated 18-9-2006 upon him. The respondent has denied that he is liable to pay Rs.54,000/- as alleged being the arrears of rent upto 30-9-2006 and thereafter from 01-10-2006 @ Rs.3300/- per month. It is further mentioned in the reply that the petitioner, even after the payment received through cheque, has been collecting monthly rent of the premises from the respondent @ Rs.1290/- per month in cash and has not Contd..........

issued any receipt as before. It is further mentioned in the reply that the respondent got the tenanted premises white- washed and painted with the knowledge and permission of the petitioner in the month of October, 2005 and spent total amount of Rs.22,865/-i.e. Rs.8,250/- as labour charges and Rs.14,615/- towards material expenses. It is further mentioned that the expenses incurred towards whitewash and paint were also to be adjusted in the subsequent monthly rent. The respondent has prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

7. The petitioner filed the replication in which the allegations as mentioned in the written statement have been denied and the contents of the petition have been reaffirmed and reiterated. In the replication the petitioner has denied that he ever received the monthly rent of Rs.1290/- per month in cash besides the cheque from the respondent.

8. I have already heard final arguments and perused the record.

9. The order under section 15(1) of DRC Act, 1958 was passed on 21-11-2007 according to which the respondent was directed to pay or deposit the rent @ Rs.3000/- per month with effect Contd..........

from 01-4-2005 till the date of order within one month and was further directed to continue to pay or deposit the future rent at the said rate month by month by 15th day of each succeeding English Calender month.

10.The petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. The copy of Conveyance Deed dated 26-4-2002 in favour of petitioner executed by the DDA with respect to the tenanted premises in question is Ex. PW1/1 (OSR). The copy of the legal notice dated 23-8-2006 addressed to the respondent and sent by the petitioner through his counsel is Ex. PW1/4. In the said notice both the addresses of the respondent are mentioned as mentioned in the array of parties in the present petition. The original registered postal receipts bearing No.6523 and 6524, both in the name of respondent and dated 23-8-2006 are Ex. PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/6 respectively. The original UPC receipt is Ex. PW1/7 in which also both the addresses of the respondent are mentioned. One AD card in the name of respondent bearing the address of the respondent of Jain Contd..........

Market, Alipur, Delhi is Ex. PW1/8. The registered envelope in the name of respondent sent at Pitampura, New Delhi address is Ex. PW1/9 which has been returned undelivered with the endorsement that despite repeated visits the premises found locked. The corrigendum dated 18-9-2006 addressed to the respondent is Ex. PW1/10. The said corrigendum talks about a consolidated statement regarding the position of total rent paid and the said consolidated statement showing the payment of rent since January, 2003 to March, 2005 is Ex. PW1/10A. The original UPC receipt with respect to said corrigendum is Ex. PW1/12. The site plan is Ex. PW1/2 in which the tenanted premises is shown in red colour. In the cross-examination the petitioner i.e. PW-1 has stated that at the time of creation of tenancy he was not filing the income tax returns and he is filing the same since 1995-1996 and the tenanted premises are shown in the returns. He denied the suggestion that just with a view to show in the income tax returns, he asked the respondent to give a cheque of Rs.3000/- per month as rent for two years i.e. the period after 31-12-2002.

Contd..........

PW-1 also denied the suggestion that out of cheque amount of Rs.3000/- per month which was paid by the respondent to him as rent, the actual rent was in the sum of Rs.1171/- per month only or that the remaining amount was to be adjusted in the future payments of rent. He denied the suggestion that in the year 2006 the rate of rent was Rs.1290/- per month. He also denied the suggestion that in October, 2005 he asked the respondent to get the tenanted premises whitewashed at his cost or that the respondent incurred a sum of Rs.22,865/- towards the same which was to be adjusted in the future rents. PW-1 denied the suggestion that no notice was served upon the respondent for demanding the arrears of rent. PW-1 also denied the suggestion that the premises mentioned at the addresses mentioned on the notice as well as on the postal envelope have no relevancy either with the residential address or with the office/business address of the respondent. No other witness was examined on behalf of petitioner.

11.The respondent has filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. RW1/A and the respondent has been examined as Contd..........

RW-1. In the cross-examination RW-1 i.e. respondent admitted that prior to him, his brother-in-law namely Sh. Madan Lal Batra was tenant in the tenanted premises in question and stated that he is not sure whether he was tenant since 06-9-1986. RW-1 stated that the terms of tenancy were settled in his presence between the petitioner and Sh. Madan Lal Batra and volunteered that the rate of rent fixed was Rs.700/-per month and the said terms were not settled in writing. RW-1 denied the suggestion that it was settled in writing or that he signed as a witness. In the cross-examination the counsel for petitioner has shown the lease of agreement dated 06-9-1986 to the respondent and after seeing the same the respondent stated that it bears his signatures as witness at point A and the said lease agreement is Ex. RW1/P-1 which is dated 06-9-1986. The lease agreement is between Sh. V. P. Vohra son of Sh. M.L. Vohra i.e. the petitioner and Sh. Madan Lal Batra son of Sh. M. R. Batra i.e. the said brother-in-law of the respondent. The rate of rent as per the said lease agreement is Rs.1050/- per month and the said agreement is with respect to tenanted Contd..........

premises in question bearing No. CP-98, Pitampura, New Delhi. RW-1 denied the suggestion that to avail the benefit of low income and for the purpose of ration card he agreed to receive the receipt of rent @ Rs.800/- per month. RW-1 categorically admitted in cross-examination that he issued cheques @ Rs.3000/- per month to the petitioner from 01-5- 2000 to 31-3-2005 and volunteered that they were issued on the basis of understanding that the petitioner was to take some benefit of rebate in income tax, however, the rent was Rs.1092/- per month only and the difference between Rs.3000/- and Rs.1092/- was to be adjusted in future months towards rent. He stated that he has mentioned so in his affidavit and after seeing the affidavit Ex. RW1/A the respondent stated that it is not mentioned in his affidavit, however, the mention is regarding Rs.1290/- per month in para 6 of the affidavit. RW-1 denied the suggestion that the rate of rent was never Rs.1065/- per month or Rs.1290/- per month and stated that he never issued any notice in writing to the petitioner regarding adjustment of the difference of the rent in Contd..........

future months. RW-1 stated in the cross-examination that the address as mentioned on the UPC receipt Ex. PW1/7 is his correct address and the address as mentioned on the envelope Ex. PW1/9 is also his correct address. The UPC receipt Ex. PW1/7 is reflecting both the addresses of the respondent and the same is with respect to the dispatch of legal notice dated 23-8-2006. The registered AD envelope in the name of respondent bearing the address of Pitampura, New Delhi i.e. the tenanted premises is Ex. PW1/9. Respondent further stated in the cross-examination that he is doing the transport business in the name of Delhi Uklana Rajasthan Transport and he is having office at 11, Libaspur, G. T. Karnal Road Ambey Garden, Delhi. He also stated that the second address of Alipur as mentioned in the UPC receipt Ex. PW1/7 is wrong address and it is not his address and further stated that the name of transport company is also wrongly mentioned in it. The respondent denied the suggestion that he received the legal notice dated 23-8-2006 at his office address through registered AD post. RW-1 stated that the AD card Ex. PW1/8 Contd..........

does not bear his signatures or the signatures of any other person on his behalf. He also stated that he is residing alone in the tenanted premises presently and his parents were residing with him earlier in the said premises and his sister was also residing there and now she is married and not residing there. RW-1 further stated that his wife was also residing with him earlier in the tenanted premises and stated that sometimes his parents stay with him and sometimes with his brother at Faridabad and stated that his sister got married about 14-15 years ago. Statement of RW-1 was recorded on 11-11-2009. RW-1 stated that he is residing continuously since beginning till date in the tenanted premises. He denied the suggestion that he received the legal notice of demand Ex. PW1/4 or that he failed to comply with it. RW-1 volunteered that the question of payment of enhanced rent @ Rs.3300/- per month does not arise since no notice Ex. PW1/4 was served upon him. He admitted the suggestion that in November, 2006 he sent a money order in the sum of Rs.3000/- to the petitioner. He further admitted that he received back said money order Contd..........

amount and further admitted that in January, 2007 he sent two money orders to the petitioner out of which one was for Rs.1000/- and another was for Rs.5000/- and admitted that both the said money orders were returned back to him. RW-1 admitted that he did not issue any notice in writing to the petitioner regarding the whitewash, paint and polish work. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely. No other witness was examined on behalf of respondent.

12.In the petition the details of the rent paid have been mentioned which are paid through cheques in the sum of Rs.3000/- each, the period for which rent paid and the date of payment is also mentioned. The said details reveal that the rent was not regularly paid by the respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner has also placed on record the statement of his bank account which is collectively Ex. PW1/3 which is duly certified. The said payments through cheques are also reflected in the bank account statements. The last payment is for the period 01-3-2005 to 31-3-2005 towards rent and the date of payment is 29-4-2006 as mentioned in the petition. The respondent has Contd..........

admitted in the cross-examination that he issued cheques @ Rs.3000/- per month to the petitioner from 01-5-2000 to 31-3- 2005. It is clear admission on the part of respondent. The plea of the respondent is that the actual rate of rent was Rs.1290/- per month and the remaining sum was to be adjusted in future months towards rent. The respondent has not issued any notice in writing to the petitioner regarding the adjustment of the difference of rent in future months. In the written statement the respondent has mentioned that he has paid an amount of Rs.3000/- per month by way of cheques for two years and the rent upto 31-12-2002 @ Rs.1065/- per month was paid. The said period of two years, as per the contention of respondent is the year 2003 and 2004, however, in the cross-examination the respondent categorically admitted that he issued the cheques @ Rs.3000/- per month to the petitioner from 01-5-2000 to 31- 3-2005 . This is the clear cut contradiction on the part of respondent. There are various credit entries as reflected in the bank account statement of petitioner Ex. PW1/3, the said statement covers the period from the year 1998 till the year Contd..........

2007. Various credit entries in the sum of Rs.3000/- each are reflected in the said statement in the year 2000 also and the said entries are against the cheques. The respondent had admitted that his correct address is mentioned on the UPC receipt Ex. PW1/7 and also on the envelope Ex. PW1/9. Respondent also stated in the cross-examination that he is continuously residing in the tenanted premises since beginning. Respondent failed to prove on record that he incurred the sum of Rs.22,865/- on whitewash, paint etc. No notice in writing was issued to the petitioner in this regard to adjust the said alleged amount in future rent. The respondent has relied upon one rent receipt dated 15-6-91 Ex. PW1/DA in which the rent of Rs.800/- is reflected for the period 01-6-1991 to 30-6-1991. No other rent receipt has been relied upon by the respondent. The respondent also admitted his signatures on lease agreement Ex. RW1/P-1 at point A. The said agreement was between the petitioner and the brother-in-law of respondent in which the rent is Rs.1050/- per month and the said agreement is dated 06-9-1986. It is unbelievable that the rent stood Contd..........

decreased to Rs.800/- per month after a gap of about five years from the date of lease agreement. The contention of the petitioner is that the said rent receipt for Rs.800/- was issued to the respondent to avail the benefit of low income and for the purpose of ration card. In any case the number of cheques in the sum of Rs.3000/- each have been issued by respondent to the petitioner spreading over a period of about five years. The respondent has utterly failed to prove on record that the rate of rent was not Rs.3000/- per month or that it was Rs.1065/- per month or Rs.1290/- per month. In legal notice dated 23-8-06 Ex. PW1/4, both the addresses of respondent are mentioned. Said notice has been sent at both the addresses through registered AD post as well as through UPC. The registered envelope Ex. PW1/9 was sent at Pitampura address of the respondent, however, there is an AD Card Ex. PW1/8 on record which is addressed to the respondent and sent at Alipur, Delhi address. In the cross-examination the respondent has stated that the second address of Alipur as mentioned on UPC receipt Ex. PW1/7 is wrong address. First address of the Contd..........

respondent is not disputed. The notice as well as corrigendum were also sent through UPC to the respondent at both the addresses.

13.In view of detailed discussion on the evidence on record, it is clear that the respondent is in habit of blowing hot and cold together and contradicts his own stand. In view of the detailed facts and circumstances of the case it is proved on record that the legal notice dated 23-8-2006 as well as corrigendum dated 18-9-2006 were duly served upon the respondent through post, at least at the address of Pitampura, New Delhi. Moreover, the respondent is continuously residing at said address and it is not the case of the respondent that the address of Pitampura as mentioned in the petition is wrong address.

14.The legal notice Ex. PW1/4 also talks about the increase in rate of rent by 10% with effect from 01-10-2006. After the said increase the rent to be paid was Rs.3300/- per month. In view of the above facts and circumstances and material on record and the observations made, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has successfully proved his case under section Contd..........

14(1)(a) of DRC Act, 1958. Hence the present petition under section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act, 1958 is allowed and accordingly the order under section 15(1) of DRC Act is hereby passed in continuation of the previous order under section 15(1) of DRC Act dated 21-11-2007 and the respondent is accordingly directed to pay to the petitioner or deposit in the bank account of the petitioner the entire arrears of difference in rent with effect from 01-10-2006 till date calculated @ Rs.300/- per month i.e. the difference between enhanced rate of Rs.3300/- per month and the previous rate of Rs.3000/- per month, within a period of one month from today and further directed to continue to pay or deposit in the bank account of the petitioner, the future rent at the enhanced rate of Rs.3300/- per month, month by month, by 15th day of each succeeding English Calender month. The enhancement of rent is effective from 01- 10-2006.

15.The bank account number has been provided today by the petitioner which is saving bank account No.21050115937 in Allahabad Bank, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi.

Contd..........

The respondent may either pay to the petitioner or deposit in the above said account, the rent as directed.

16.The tenanted premises are reflected in red colour in site plan Ex. PW1/2. The eviction order cannot be passed straightway as the respondent has to be given the benefit of protection under section 14(2) of DRC Act. The present petition is accordingly allowed under section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act, 1958. 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 to the respondent. A copy of this judgement be kept in the separate miscellaneous file. Put up for consideration on 08-10-

10.

17.Meanwhile, naib nazir to report whether the respondent has complied or not with the order passed under section 15(1) of DRC Act dated 21-11-2007 as well as the order under section 15(1) of DRC Act which is passed today. Petitioner is directed to report on the next date whether the respondent has complied with the order under section 15(1) of DRC Act Contd..........

passed today or not. Respondent is directed to furnish all the proofs/receipts of payment or deposit of rent on the next date positively. Ordered accordingly.

Passed and announced in the open Court today.

(Manish Gupta) Addl. Rent Controller, NW Rohini, Delhi 04-08-2010.

Contd..........