Delhi District Court
Smt. Parmeshwari Devi vs Smt. Raj Rani on 22 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH, ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER2 (EAST), KKD COURT, DELHI.
E23/09
(Case I.D. No.02402C0023402009)
Smt. Parmeshwari Devi
W/o late Sh. Sukhpal Singh,
R/o A116, Main Vikas Marg,
Shakarpur, Delhi110092. ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Raj Rani
W/o late Sh. Rajinder Kumar,
R/o B36, Shakarpur,
Delhi110092.
Also At:
Shop no.2, A116/2,
Main Vikas Marg,
Shakarpur, Delhi110092. ...Respondent
Date of filing of petition : 21/01/2009
Date of argument : 22/10/2011
Date of Judgment : 22/10/2011
Petition u/s 14 (1) (a) DRC Act
JUDGMENT:
1. Smt. Parmeshwari Devi (hereinafter called petitioner) filed this eviction E23/09 Page 1 of 7 petition u/s 14 (1) (a) DRC Act against Smt. Raj Rani (hereinafter called respondent) in respect of shop no.2 measuring about 8" x 10" at ground floor in the property bearing no.A116/2, Main Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi110092 as shown in red colour in the site plan attached (hereinafter called tenanted premises).
2. Petitioner alleged that she is wner/landlady of the tenanted premises which was let out to respondent through an oral agreement but she always issued rent receipt to respondent against rent paid to her. Petitioner further alleged that respondent is a habitual defaulter in making the payment of rent and electricity charges and therefore she earlier filed a petition u/s 14(1) (a) DRC Act against her but the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn as compromised on 19/01/05. Petitioner further alleged that in that petition, respondent executed a compromise deed whereby she undertake to pay the rent @ Rs.750/ p.m excluding electricity charges w.e.f 01/01/05 and therefore respondent paid the rent till 30/11/06 thereafter respondent failed to pay the rent despite her demands and requests. Petitioner further alleged that she served a legal demand notice on 14/09/07 through registered post and UPC and same was duly served upon the respondent but despite this respondent neither replied the notice nor tendered the rent to her accordingly she filed the present petition.
3. Summons for settlement of issues were duly served upon the respondent who put her appearance and filed the written statement wherein she stated that petitioner filed this petition without any cause of action as legal notice of demand has not been served upon her. On merit, respondent admitted that there is an oral agreement between parties regarding tenancy and rent has to be paid subject to issuance of rent receipts. She E23/09 Page 2 of 7 further stated that petitioner has not been issuing the rent receipts to her despite her several requests. Respondent further admitted that petitioner earlier filed a petition baring no.E171/03 which was dismissed as compromised on 19/01/05 and thereby rent was fixed @ Rs.750/p.m w.e.f 01/01/05. Respondent further alleged that she has paid the rent till 31/07/08 but as petitioner has not issued rent receipts hence she stopped paying the rent. Respondent further stated that she has not been paying the rent to petitioner w.e.f August 2008 to April 2009 on account of nonissuance of rent receipts however she is willing to clear all the dues if petitioner issued rent receipts to her against payment of rent. Respondent accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Petitioner filed replication to the written statement of respondent whereby the petitioner has reiterated the facts stated in the petition and denied those of the written statement.
5. The Ld. Predecessor of this court passed an order u/s 15(1) DRC Act on 22/07/09 and thereby directed the respondent to make the payment of the arrears of rent dues @ Rs.750/p.m w.e.f. 01/08/08 in the mode and manner reflected therein.
6. The respondent was failed to appear before court on 01/10/09 so he was proceeded exparte on the very same day. Thereafter mattes was fixed for exparte evidence.
7. In exparte evidence, petitioner examined herself as PW1. Petitioner generally deposed the same fact as stated in the petition. PW1 also proved the siteplan of tenanted premises Ex.PW1/1, rent receipts issued by her to respondent Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/11, certified copy of order dt.19/01/05 Ex.PW1/12, copy of the statement of the parties in petition bearing no.171/03 Ex.PW1/13, agreement dt.19/01/05 Ex.PW1/14, copy E23/09 Page 3 of 7 of legal demand notice Ex.PW1/15, postal receipts Ex.PW1/16 & Ex.PW1/17 and receipt of UPC Ex.PW1/18.
8. After completion of petitioner evidence, respondent filed an application u/O 9 R. 7 CPC for setting aside the exparte order but the said application of respondent was dismissed vide order 24/05/10. Thereafter petitioner filed an application u/s 15(7) DRC Act as respondent has failed to deposit or pay the rent to her despite the order passed u/s 15(1) DRC Act. The application of petitioner u/s 15(7) DRC Act was allowed vide order dt. 28/03/11 and thereby defence of respondent was struck off.
9. I have heard the arguments of ld. counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the material available on record.
Relief u/s 14 (1) (a) DRC Act
10. To prove her case u/s 14 (1) (a) DRC Act, the petitioner is required to be proved that :
(i) relationship of landlord and tenant;
(ii)service of notice of demand;
(iii)existence of arrears of rent legally recoverable on the date of service of demand notice;
(iv)failure of the tenant to pay/tender the entire legally recoverable arrears of rent within stipulated period of two months from date of service of demand notice.
11. Respondent has not disputed the landlord tenant relationship between her and petitioner. Further respondent admitted that compromise Ex.PW1/14 arrived between E23/09 Page 4 of 7 her and petitioner being landlady on 19/01/05 wherein she agreed to pay the enhanced rate @ Rs.750/p.m w.e.f 01/01/05. Under these circumstances, petitioner established that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between her and respondent accordingly issue no.(i) stands satisfied.
12. PW1 categorically deposed that respondent is a habitual defaulter in making of payment of rent month by month and therefore she is in arrears of rent w.e.f 01/12/06 @ Rs.750/p.m. PW1 also deposed that she has served the legal notice of demand Ex.PW1/15 upon the respondent through registered post AD as well as UPC. The receipts of registered post AD are Ex.PW1/16 & Ex.PW1/17 whereas receipt of UPC is Ex.PW1/18. It is not disputed that legal notice of demand Ex.PW1/15 was not only sent to respondent on her tenanted premises address but also on the address of her residence. The receipt of registered post AD Ex.PW1/16 & Ex.PW1/17 and receipts of UPC Ex.PW1/18 bears the correct address of the tenanted premises and residential address of respondent. Further AD Card and UPC envelop containing legal notice have not been received back either from the residential address or from the tenanted premises of respondent. Under these circumstances, it is presumed that legal notice of demand Ex.PW1/15 has been duly served upon the respondent. It is pertinent that there is no evidence of respondent in rebuttal of this presumption hence petitioner has proved the service of legal notice of demand Ex.PW1/15 upon respondent accordingly issue no.(ii) also stands satisfied.
13. PW1 deposed that it was agreed between her and respondent on 19/01/05 vide compromise Ex.PW1/14 that respondent shall pay the enhanced rent @ Rs.750/p.m w.e.f 01/01/05 and she will issue the rent receipts in favour of respondent for the amount of E23/09 Page 5 of 7 rent paid to her. PW1 further deposed that after compromise respondent paid the rent till 30/11/06 thereafter respondent has failed to pay the rent despite her demand. Petitioner placed rent receipts Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/11. The rent receipts Ex.PW1/11 reveals that rent w.e.f 01/08/06 to 30/11/06 was paid on 19/10/06. The respondent has not placed any rent receipt. The case of the respondent that she paid the rent till 31/07/08 but petitioner has not issued rent receipts thereafter she has not paid the rent on account of nonissuance of rent receipts. Admittedly u/s 26(2) DRC Act, the tenant is entitled for receipt of payment of rent from landlord or his authorized agent. If rent is paid to the landlord and he or his authorized agent refused or neglect to deliver to the tenant a receipt referred to in subsection 2 of Section 26 DRC Act, the tenant may approach to the controller for the certificate to him for the payment of rent u/s 26(3) DRC Act. It is clear from the written statement of respondent that she has not approached to the court for certificate regarding payment of rent to petitioner. Further respondent has not produced/filed any document which suggest that she has paid the rent to the petitioner till 31/07/08. In view of above discussion, I am of considered opinion that respondent is in existence of arrears of rent legally recoverable on the date of service of demand notice dt.14/09/07 Ex.PW1/15 accordingly issue no.(iii) stands satisfied.
14. PW1 deposed that despite service of legal demand notice dt. 14/09/07 Ex.PW1/15, respondent has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent. It is not disputed that legal demand notice Ex.PW1/15 has been sent to respondent through registered post AD as well UPC on 14/09/07. It is the general presumption that ordinarily the registered post letter would be served within 4 & 5 days from the date of its post. It is also not E23/09 Page 6 of 7 disputed that the present petition filed on 21/01/09 meaning thereby that the present petition filed after more than one year from the service of legal demand notice Ex.PW1/15. The respondent claimed that she paid the rent till 31/07/08 and therefore petitioner has no cause of action. Respondent has not proved this fact as her defence has been struck off. Under these circumstances, it is clear that respondent has not paid or tendered the arrears of rent after service of legal demand notice Ex.PW1/15 to petitioner. In view of this discussion, petitioner has established that respondent has failed to pay or tender the legally recoverable arrears of rent within the stipulated period of two months from the date of service of legal demand notice hence issue no.(iv) also stands proved.
15. In view of aforesaid discussion, I hold that petition u/s 14 (1) (a) DRC Act deserved to be allowed. Ordered accordingly.
16. Petitioner has established that respondent has paid the rent @ Rs.750/p.m upto 30/11/06 and thereafter he has failed to pay the rent to him. Admittedly in order u/s 15(1) DRC Act dt.22/07/09, respondent was directed to pay the rent @ Rs.750/p.m w.e.f 01/08/08. As petitioner proved that respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f 01/12/06 hence order passed u/s 15(1) DRC Act on 22/07/09 is required modification. Accordingly order u/s 15(1) DRC Act modified to this effect that respondent is hereby directed to pay the arrears of rent @ Rs.750/p.m w.e.f 01/12/06 till date (after adjusting the amount of rent already paid by him).
(Announced in the open (RAVINDER SINGH)
court on 22/10/2011) ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER2(E)
KKD COURT, DELHI.
E23/09 Page 7 of 7