Delhi District Court
Sh. Lokesh Kumar vs Sh. Vinay Sharma on 27 November, 2021
In the Court of CCJ cum ARC (Central District)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Presided by : Sh. Santosh Kumar Singh
CIS No. E-414/2019
CNR No. DLCT03-003812-2019
In the matter of :-
Sh. Lokesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar
R/o L-242, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110052. ...........Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Vinay Sharma
S/o Sh. B.D. Sharma
(Defence of the respondent has been struck off on 31.10.2019)
Factory At :-
L-242, Ground Floor,
Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110052.
Also reside at :-
B-1489, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110052. ............Respondent
Application for Eviction of the tenant/respondent under Section 14
(1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act
Date of institution : 28.05.2019
Date of reserved for judgment : 27.11.2021
CIS No. E-414/19 Lokesh Kumar Vs. Vinay Sharma Page 1 of 6
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2021.11.27
SINGH 16:53:57 +0500
Date of decision : 27.11.2021
Decision : Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :-
(Defence of the respondent has been struck off on 31.10.2019)
1. It is pertinent to mention here that the present application for eviction of tenant/respondent was filed u/s 14 (1) (a) read with 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. However, the same was considered by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court u/s 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act and accordingly, normal summons were issued upon the respondent. Therefore, the present petition is to be considered as filed u/s 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act.
2. This is a petition for recovery of possession of premises, i.e., a portion of ground floor of property no. L-242, Shastri Nagar, Delhi- 110052, as shown in 'red' colour in the site plan annexed with the petition (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenanted premises'), against the respondent under clause (a) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act'),
3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is the sole and absolute owner of the property no. L-242, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052. The tenanted premises was let out to the respondent for non-residential purpose at the rate of rent of Rs. 3,500/- per month, excluding electricity, water and other charges on 10.01.2008. It is stated that the respondent CIS No. E-414/19 Lokesh Kumar Vs. Vinay Sharma Page 2 of 6 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2021.11.27 SINGH 16:54:09 +0500 had lastly paid the rent to the father of the petitioner in the month of July, 2008 and after that he stopped paying the rent, despite requests. It is stated that the respondent has neither paid nor tendered the rent w.e.f. August, 2008 to March, 2019 and in this regard, a legal demand notice dated 15.03.2019 was served upon the respondent to clear the arrears of rent w.e.f. August, 2008 to March, 2019 @ Rs. 3,500/- per month. It is further stated that vide abovesaid legal demand notice, it was informed that the tenanted premises was lying locked since 03.09.2012. It is further directed vide said legal demand notice that within one month of receipt of legal demand notice, you (respondent) were directed to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to the petitioner. But you (respondent) failed to comply the legal demand notice and you neither paid nor tendered the rent. Hence, the present petition is filed.
4. Summons were served upon the respondent on the 2nd address on 29.07.2019 vide which he was directed to file the written statement. Further, the respondent was directed vide order dated 30.09.2019 to file the written statement by 29.10.2019, subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the petitioner. However, vide order dated 31.10.2019, the defence of the respondent was struck off because he failed to comply with the last ordersheet dated 30.09.2019, i.e., non-filing of WS and thereafter, the matter was listed for orders u/s 15 (1) of the DRC Act. Further, an application u/s 151 CPC was moved on behalf of the respondent but the CIS No. E-414/19 Lokesh Kumar Vs. Vinay Sharma Page 3 of 6 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2021.11.27 SINGH 16:54:22 +0500 same was dismissed on 20.12.2019.
Vide order dated 16.04.2021, order u/s 15 (1) of the DRC Act was passed and the matter was listed for PE.
5. In support of his case, the petitioner Sh. Lokesh Kumar got examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which was exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. Further, he relied upon the following documents :-
1) Site plan is Ex. PW1/1.
2) Legal notice dated 15.03.2019 is Ex. PW1/2.
3) Speed post receipts with tracking reports are Ex. PW1/3 & 5 and courier receipts are Ex. PW1/4.
4) Present eviction petition is Ex. PW1/6.
Thereafter, PE was closed.
6. Since the defence of the respondent was struck off vide order dated 31.10.2019, therefore, he did not prefer to cross-examine PW1 and even he did not prefer to lead evidence in his defence and hence, the matter was listed for final arguments.
7. During the course of arguments, it was observed by the Court that order u/s 15 (1) of the DRC Act had been passed on 06.04.2021 in this matter, whereby respondent was directed to clear the arrears of rent.
CIS No. E-414/19 Lokesh Kumar Vs. Vinay Sharma Page 4 of 6 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2021.11.27 SINGH 16:54:35 +0500
8. Final arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner heard and I have also gone through the judicial record carefully.
9. PW1, in his evidence by way of affidavit, re-iterated and re- affirmed the facts of his petition. The petitioner has proved on record site plan Ex. PW1/1, legal notice dated 15.03.2019 Ex. PW1/2, speed post receipts with tracking reports Ex. PW1/3 & 5, courier receipts Ex. PW1/4 and present eviction petition Ex. PW1/6.
10. It is pertinent to mention that vide order dated 31.10.2019, the defence of the respondent was struck off because he failed to comply with the ordersheet dated 30.09.2019, i.e., non-filing of WS.
So far as the petition u/s 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act is concerned, the evidence led by the petitioner remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition u/s 14 (1)(a) of the DRC Act stands allowed, subject to inquiry u/s 14 (2) of the DRC Act.
11. Issue Court notice to the respondent who may be served upon copy of this judgment. The Process Server is directed that the respondent/tenant be served by way of affixation in case of refusal/non-availability/lock on the premises. Further, photograph of affixation be obtained at the expenses of the petitioner which may be filed in the Court alongwith his report by the Process Server.
CIS No. E-414/19 Lokesh Kumar Vs. Vinay Sharma Page 5 of 6 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2021.11.27 SINGH 16:54:49 +0500
12. Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate miscellaneous file for the consideration of the benefit u/s 14(2) of the DRC Act.
13. Nazir is directed to file a report about the compliance of order under Section 15 (1) of the DRC Act. A copy of this judgment be placed in the miscellaneous file. No order as to costs.
14. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2021.11.27
SINGH 16:54:58 +0500
Announced in open Court (Santosh Kumar Singh)
on 27th Day of November, 2021 CCJ cum ARC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CIS No. E-414/19 Lokesh Kumar Vs. Vinay Sharma Page 6 of 6