Delhi District Court
In Re vs Mahant Peer Rattan Nath on 22 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/RCT: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
RCT No. 26/2018
CNR No. DLWT01-006625-2018
In re:
Shri Rakesh Dua
S/o Late Tilak Raj Dua
R/o B-145, Mansa Ram Park,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi -110059
Shop No. 2, WZ-9, Near Mahaveer Nagar,
New Delhi -110018 ...... Appellant
Versus
Mahant Peer Rattan Nath
Chela of Late Pir Shiv Nath
R/o 263, Pakki Dhakki,
Jammu -160001 J & K.
Also at WZ-9, New Mahaveer Nagar,
New Delhi -110018 ....... Respondent
Date of filing appeal eviction petition : 25.07.2006
Date of impugned judgment : 04.07.2018
Date of filing appeal : 23.07.2018
Date of hearing arguments : 16.12.2021
Date of Judgment : 22.12.2021
Appearances:
Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Rakesh Walia, Advocate for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide an appeal preferred by the appellant in terms of Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as RCT-26/2018 Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath Page 1 of 16 amended up to date (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRC Act'), whereby he has assailed the order / judgment dated 04.07.2018 passed by the Court of Sh. Ajay Nagar, the then Ld. ARC, (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in ARC No. 25722/2016, titled Mahant Pir Rattan Nath v. Shri Rakesh Dua by which the eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act was allowed and an order under Section 15 (1) of the DRC Act was passed directing the appellant / tenant to pay or deposit the legally recoverable rent @ Rs.1500/- per month w.e.f. 25.07.2003 till date within one month and thereafter continue to pay the same at the aforesaid rate by 15th day of each succeeding English Calendar month; and further directing the Civil Nazir to file his report in respect of payment of deposit of rent under Section 15 (1) of the D. R. Act. Act on 28.11.2018.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner claimed that the respondent Rakesh Dua was inducted as tenant in private shop no. 2 in the basement on the ground floor of property no. WZ-9, Krishna Park Extension, New Mahavir Nagar, Delhi, which premises is shown in the site plan Ex. PW 1/9 vide rent agreement dated 19.06.2002 Ex. PW-
2/R-10 (also PW-1/3) @ monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- excluding of other charges; and that the grievance of the petitioner was that the respondent neither paid nor tendered the rent w.e.f. 01.07.2002 and the rent stood increased by virtue of Clause (2) of the Rent Agreement and the arrears were neither paid nor tendered despite notice of demand RCT-26/2018 Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath Page 2 of 16 dated 22.05.2006 Ex.PW- 1/5. He, therefore, sought eviction of the respondent / tenant under Section 14 (1) (a) of the D. R.C. Act.
3. The respondent i.e., the appellant in the present appeal, contested the eviction petition and inter alia took preliminary objections to the effect that the petitioner was not the owner of the premises in question and rather the respondent had become the owner of the premises in question by virtue of registered General Power of Attorney and sale documents dated 30.06.2006 in his favour executed by Sh. Rakesh Chibber S/o Sh. Dev Raj Chibber, who had become owner of the demised premises by virtue of registered GPA dated 23.01.2004 executed by Brhaspati Nath and was collecting rent from the appellant It was further stated that the respondent never ever paid any rent to the petitioner and the petitioner rather misrepresented that he was the owner of the premises since 2001 and forced him to enter into a rent agreement, and therefore, the rent agreement dated 19.06.2002 Ex. PW 2/R-10 was null and void and the rent had been paid to Brahspati Nath who was lawful attorney and actual owner of Mahant Pir Shiv Nath till June 2006.
4. The respondent on merits denied the case of the petitioner inter alia denying that he was inducted as tenant on 19.06.2002 on monthly rent of Rs.1500/- exclusive other charges and denied that he was liable to pay enhanced rent to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.2005 or that he was liable to pay arrears of rent or tender the same consequent to demand notice dated 22.05.2006 Ex. PW 1/5.
RCT-26/2018 Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath Page 3 of 165. Suffice to state that the petitioner filed a replication wherein denying the allegations of the respondent, it was averred that Manohar Singh Advocate was the lawful attorney of Mahant Shiv Nath and registered lease deed dated 19.06.2002 Ex. PW 2/R-10 was executed by him, and therefore, it was not open to the respondent tenant to deny his legal right to claim demand and collect rent from him. It was denied that the rent was ever tendered by the respondent / tenant to late Mahant Pir Shiv Nath. It was denied that any attorney was executed in favour of Brahspati Nath or that the rent was ever deposited in the bank account of late Mahant Pir Shiv Nath or for that matter in the bank account of Brahspati Nath. It is pertinent to mention that since there was a dispute with regard to ownership of the property in question i.e. tenancy premises comprises of 120 sq. ft. out of property no. WZ-9 part of Khasra no. 1/37 situated at Village - Nagli Jalib Colony known as Krishna Park Extension, New Delhi -110018, no order was passed under Section 15 (1) of the D. R. C. Act.
6. During the course of trial, Baba Brahspati Nath Updeshi Chela / disciple Mahant Pir Shiv Nath was examined as PW-1 by the petitioner, who tendered his detailed affidavit in evidence dated 06.07.2009 Ex. PW 1/A and relied upon various documents that were marked Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex. PW 1/9 upon which I would delve into in some detail in the present appeal. Another witness, namely Manohar Singh S/o Late Wazir Fakir Chand was examined as PW-2 ,who filed his detail affidavit in evidence dated 08.07.2010 Ex. PW 2/A and supported the case of the petitioner that he was duly authorized vide RCT-26/2018 Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath Page 4 of 16 GPA Ex. PW-1 /4 that the lease deed was executed in respect of the private shop no. 2 in the basement on the ground floor of property no. WZ-9, Krishna Park Extension, New Mahavir Nagar, Delhi Dated 19.06.2002 in his presence. Also inter alia deposing that Mahant Pir Ratan Nath had filed a suit in respect of a portion of the property in question as a whole against Rakesh Dua & others, bearing no. 144/05 which was decided by the Court to Sh. Rakesh Tiwari, the then Ld. ADJ vide order dated 12.01.2009 in the said case Rakesh Dua filed a written statement and the crux of which is that he denied any right, title or interest in respect of property WZ-09 Krishna Park Extension, New Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi and the certified copy of which is Ex. PW 2/1. Both the witnesses duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent / tenant.
7. On the other hand, respondent Rakesh Dua also examined himself as RW-1 and two more witness Harminder Singh as RW-2 besides Ravinder Kumar as RW-3. RW-1 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner but the testimony of other two is uncontroverted as they were not cross-examined despite affording opportunities by the ld counsel for the petitioner.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT:
8. In a nutshell, the Ld. ARC vide impugned order / judgment firstly dealt with the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was found that respondent admitted that he had executed rent deed dated 19.06.2002 executed between Mahant Pir Shiv Nath RCT-26/2018 Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath Page 5 of 16 and Rakesh Dua and it was admitted case of the respondent that Mahant Pir Shiv Nath was the original or actual owner of the premises in question. On examining the evidence led by RW-1 that Brhaspati Nath executed SPA dated 23.01.2004 Ex. PW 1/R-4 in favour of Rakesh Chibber, the testimony of PW-1 Brhaspati Nath was also appreciated whereby in his cross examination he deposed that SPA dated 23.01.2004 was only for collection of rent given to Rakesh Chibber which was revoked vide notice Ex. PW 1/R-3 and PW-1 denied the suggestion that he ever executed any SPA in favour of respondent Rakesh Chibber to sell the property to anyone.
9. It was further found that PW-1 Brhaspati Nath deposed without any challenge that attorney Rakesh Chibber stopped paying rent to him after three months and denied that any rent was paid to him by Rakesh Dua on 30.06.2006. The Ld. ARC found SPA dated 24.07.2007 Ex. PW 1 /4 had been executed by Mahant Pir Shivnath in favour of Brhaspati Nath to collect rent only but not authorizing him to sell his property. Accordingly, it was held that the attorney Brhaspati Nath had no title to sell the property. The Ld. ARC held that it was not open to respondent to challenge the rent agreement dated 19.06.2002 executed between Pir Shiv Nath and him; and it was further fortified that Mahant Pir Ratan Nath as attorney of Pir Shiv Nath (original owner) produced another rent agreement dated 31.05.2004 Ex.PW 1/R-2 wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant between the Mahant Pir Ratan Nath through this attorney Brhaspati Nath established as landlord and that of respondent Rakesh Dua as tenant;
RCT-26/2018 Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath Page 6 of 16thus the plea that the respondent had become owner of property was found to be without any substance.
10. Holding further that petitioner had become owner by virtue of Will dated 12.12.2003 Ex. PW 1/ 2 left behind by Mahant Pir Shiv Nath, who died on on 09.01.2004, bequeathing right, title, interest in his and thus the petitioner was more than a tenant. Accordingly, relying on decisions in the case titled as Bharat Bhushan Vij v. Arti Teckchandani, 153 (2008) DLT 247; Plastic Chemicals Company v. Ashit Chadha & Ors, 114 (2004), DLT 408 and Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors v. Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors, 1987 AIR 2028, it was held by the ld Trial Court that it was not necessary for the petitioner to prove that he was absolute owner of premises in question rather he has been able to show that he has been more than a tenant, and thus, it was held that the petitioner was able to show existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
11. Further, the Ld. ARC returned a finding that the notice of demand dated 22.05.2006 Ex. PW 1/5 had been duly proved on the record by proving the AD signed by the respondent and by virtue of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act a presumption arose that such notice was duly served and reliance was placed on decision in case titled K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, 1999 AIR SC 3762.
12. Suffice to state that holding that legally recoverable rent was neither paid nor tendered, the present eviction petition was held to RCT-26/2018 Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath Page 7 of 16 have been successfully made by the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act, and accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.07.2018 was passed, which was followed also by passing appropriate directions under Section 15 (1) of the D. R. C Act assailed in the present appeal.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
13. The appellant has assailed the impugned order/judgment dated 04.07.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the Ld. Trial Court wrongly and erroneously held that there was existing relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties despite the fact that the appellant had placed on record the documents with regard to his ownership of the tenancy premises Ex.RW-1/1 to RW-1/5 that were not considered by the Ld. Trial Court; and that PW-1 Baba Brhaspati Nath during his cross-examination conceded that he executed a rent agreement dated 31.05.2004 Ex.PW-1/R-2 between him and the appellant; and that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that PW-1 also admitted that he had executed SPA dated 23.01.2004 Ex.PW-1/R- 4 in favour of Rakesh Chhiber including right to sell the property to any one; and that the Ld. Trial Court did not properly appreciate the testimony of PW-1 and failed to appreciate that the testimonies of RW-2 Harminder Singh and RW-3 Ravinder Kumar remained was uncontroverted and unrebutted; and that PW-1 Baba Brhaspati Nath when confronted with rent receipt Ex.PW-2/R-5 to R-9 during cross- examination gave evasive replies; and that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that even RW-2 Harminder Singh has testified without any challenge that Shop No.1 on the first floor without roof rights in the RCT-26/2018 Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath Page 8 of 16 same property bearing No. WZ-9 had been sold to him by Rakesh Chhiber vide GPA Ex.R3W1 for consideration on 03.02.2005; and that likewise RW-3 Ravinder Kumar testified that Rakesh Chhiber had executed the sale documents in question in favour of the appellant dated 30.06.2006 EX.RW-1/1 to RW-1/6; and that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that that the petitioner Mahant Pir Rattan Nath was not having any locus standi since he failed to prove the Will dated 12.12.2003 Ex.PW-1/2 in accordance with law.
DECISION:
14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties at Bar. I have gone through the record of the present appeal as also oral and documentary evidence led during trial giving rise to passing of impugned order/judgment.
15. In order to decide the present appeal, it would be expedient to refer to the provision of Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act provides as under:-
"Section 14 : Protection of tenant against eviction - (1) Not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant.
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more grounds only.
Section 14 (1) (a) : that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole arrears of the rent legally recoverable RCT-26/2018 Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath Page 9 of 16 from him within two months of the day on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served of him by the landlord in the manner provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1881 (4 of 1882)."
16. The foundation to the applicability of Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act is existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that in order to succeed in an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act, the petitioner is required to prove the following ingredients: -
"(i) that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
(ii) Rate of rent;
(iii) that there were arrears of legally recoverable rent at the time of issuance of legal demand notice;
(iv) that a valid legal demand notice was duly served upon the respondent; and
(v) that the respondent has neither paid nor tendered the entire arrears of legally recoverable rent within two months of date of receipt of legal demand notice."
17. In the light of the said proposition of law reverting back to the instant appeal for a decision, at the outset, this Court/Tribunal has no hesitation in holding that the appeal filed by the appellant is bereft of any merit. First thing first, it is clearly brought home from the evidence led on the record by the parties that PW-1 Brhaspati Nath in his detailed affidavit dated 06.07.2009 Ex.PW-1/A categorically stated that Mahant Pir Shiv Nath was absolute owner of the property i.e. plot measuring 100 Sq. yards over which he got constructed one Temple on an area of about 400 Sq. yards and built shops on an area of 300 Sq.
RCT-26/2018 Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath Page 10 of 16Yards also one hall on the remaining 300 Sq. yards on the ground floor, basement as also first and second floor. The said aspect was not challenged in the cross-examination of PW-. PW-2 Sh. Mohinder Singh, Advocate testified without any challenge that the said Rent Agreement was executed by him with the appellant as Attorney of Baba Pir Shiv Nath. It is also admitted case of the appellant himself that registered Rent Agreement dated 19.06.2002 Ex.PW-2/R-10 (also Ex.PW-1/3) was executed between him and Sh. Mohinder Singh, Advocate, GPA holder of Mahant Pir Shiv Nath at a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- excluding other charges for a period of 11 months and a bare perusal of the said rent agreement would show that recital clearly indicated that Mahant Pir Shiv Nath was absolute owner of the property in question including Private Shop No.2 without roof rights measuring 120 Sq. Feet consisting of basement and shop built up on property No. WZ-9, situated at New Mahavir Nagar, Krishna Park Extension, New Delhi.
18. Secondly, the entire case of the appellant that he had purchased the tenancy shop in question from Rakesh Chhiber being GPA holder dated 23.01.2004 Ex.PW-1/R-4 from Brhaspati Nath was completely ambushed by PW-1 in his testimony before the Court. The Ld. Trial Court rightly appreciated that PW-1 Brhaspati Nath in his cross-examination indeed conceded that he had executed SPA dated 23.01.2004 Ex.PW-1/R-4 in favour of Rakesh Chhiber but then he also in the same breath denied that Rakesh Chhiber had been given any power to sell the property since the SPA given in his favour by Mahant Pir Shiv Nath was not including power to sell, dispose off or alienate the RCT-26/2018 Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath Page 11 of 16 property thereby create third party rights; and PW-1 categorically testified that Rakesh Chhiber was only given power as an agent or Attorney to collect the rent from tenant but since he did not accounted for the rent collected, the SPA executed in favour of Rakesh Chhiber was revoked vide notice dated 7th January, 2008 Ex.PW-1/R-3, inter alia agitating that he had wrongly claiming that Brahspati Nath was owner of the tenancy premises on the demise of Mahant Pir Shiv Nath.
19. Now, thirdly a bare perusal of the SPA dated 23.01.2004 Ex.PW-1/R-4 executed by Brahspati Nath in favour of Rakesh Chhiber would show that latter was given only power to collect rent and there was no mention of any transfer of right, title or interest in the tenancy premises or the property No. WZ-9 as a whole to sell disposed of or alienate the property in favour of any third person. Indeed the appellant and his two witnesses viz. RW-2 Harminder Singh and RW-3 Ravinder Kumar did testify that Rakesh Chhiber had sold not only the tenancy shop in question but another shops also to RW-2, what is clearly discernible is that sale documents dated 30.06.2006 executed by Rakesh Chhiber as SPA of Brahspati Nath (PW-2), which documents are Ex.RW-1/1 to RW-1/6 in the nature of GPA, possession letter, Will, Receipt, agreement to sell do not create any legal right, title or interest in favour of the appellant as owner of the tenancy premises since PW-1 Brhaspati Nath had no such authority or power as Attorney of original owner Mahant Pir Shiv Nath to sell, dispose of or alienate and thereby create right, title or interest in favour of any other person. Even PW-2 in his cross-examination testified without any challenged that Brhaspati RCT-26/2018 Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath Page 12 of 16 Nath was Attorney of Mahant Pir Shiv Nath, he was not given any Attorney to sell the property to any one. Thus, it is clearly brought out that Rakesh Chhiber had no authority or legal right to sell or dispose of the tenancy premises in question to the appellant, which is covered by the latin expression/maxim "nemo dat quod non habet' meaning thereby that "no one can pass a better title than what he himself has".
20. Fourthly, it is also brought out in the testimony of PW-1 that Mahant Pir Shiv Nath passed away on 09.01.2004 leaving behind a Will dated 12.12.2003 Ex.PW-1/2 whereby right, title and interest in respect of various immovable properties in Jammu as well as Delhi had been bequeathed in favour of the petitioner Mahant Pir Rattan Nath and the property in question was covered in the Will under the head 'commercial property' vide item No. 4, and therefore, there could be no challenge to the execution of the said Will by the appellant. A half hearted plea by the ld Counsel for the appellant that since Succession Certificate in respect of movable property had been issued in favour of Nath vide judgment dated 09.09.2009, and thus Brahspati Nath had the right to sell the property, cuts no ice either. Although in the said judgment it is reflected that Brahspati Nath pleaded that no Will had been left behind by deceased Mahant Pir Shiv Nath, however, since such fact was not confronted with in the cross-examination of PW-1, it is doubtful if the debts & securities with regard to which Succession Certificate was sought encompassed in the Will dated 12.12.2003 Ex.PW-1/2. It assumes significance that PW-1 reiterated that the petitioner Mahant Pir Rattan Nath is the owner of the property in RCT-26/2018 Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath Page 13 of 16 question. There is no legal infirmity or incorrect approach adopted by the Ld. Trial Court in holding that petitioner Mahant Pir Rattan Nath by virtue of Will dated 12.12.2003 Ex.PW-1/2 was legally entitled to institute the present eviction petition and prosecute the same for being somebody more than tenant, for which reliance was rightly placed on the decision in the case of Bharat Bhushan Vij v. Arti Teckchandani (supra), wherein it was held as under:-
"4. The concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. If the premises was let out by a person and after his death, the premises has come in the hands of beneficiary under a Will, the tenant has no right to challenge the title of such a beneficiary if on the death of the original owner the tenant has any doubt as to who was the owner of the premises, he is supposed to file an interpleader suit impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased and ask the Court to decide as to who shall be the landlord/owner after the death of the original owner. Where no interpleader suit is filed by the tenant and the tenant continues in possession after death of the original owner without demur and without raising an objection against the person, who claims to have inherited the property under the Will, he later on cannot challenge the ownership of such a person. It is not the domain of the tenant to challenge the Will of the deceased landlord. If a landlord is able to show that there is a testament in his/her favour, he/she is deemed to have discharged his/her burden of proving the ownership under the Act. If the tenant takes a frivolous objection about ownership, such an objection cannot be entertained unless the tenant comes forward as to who was the landlord/owner of the premises and to whom he has been paying rent after the death of the original owner.
5. This Court in Ram Chander v. Ram Pyari 109 (2004) DLT 388 and Plashchemicals Company v. Ashit Chadha & Anr. 114(2004)DLT408 have laid down the law that it was not for the tenant to challenge the Will of the landlord and any such challenge made by the tenant is a baseless and frivolous challenge. I, therefore, consider that even if the learned Additional Rent Controller did not dwell upon this point, such a challenge made by the tenant would not result RCT-26/2018 Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath Page 14 of 16 into non suiting the landlord. Moreover, the evidence led by the landlady in this case makes it clear that she inherited the property, in question, on the basis of MI left by her father in law. There is no other person who has claimed ownership over the property and this objection was raised just for the sake of raising objection."
21. That being the case the findings recorded by the Ld. Trial Court with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties cannot be displaced or overturned. Hence, without further ado, in the last it must be re-affirmed that the petitioner has successfully proven that he had served the first demand notice dated 22.05.2006 Ex.PW-1/5 through his Counsel Mr. N.S. Negi pointing out that on the demise of Mahant Pir Shiv Nath on 09.01.2004 he became owner of the property including the tenancy portion by virtue of Will dated 12.12.2003 Ex.PW-1/2, which is evidenced by registered postal receipts and UPCs Ex.PW-1/6 & PW-1/7 at two different addresses of the appellant and while the notice sent to his residential address at B-115, Mansa Ram Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi were returned back undelivered with the remarks 'no such person is residing at the given address' by the postman, the notice was served upon the appellant at shop No.2, property No. WZ-9, vide AD Card EX.PW-1/8 bearing his signatures. No reply was given by the appellant and there was no serious challenge in the testimony of PW-1 that no demand notice was ever served upon the appellant. In any case, Ld. Trial Court rightly referred to presumption that arises under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and quite rightly again placed reliance on decision in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, 1999 AIR SC 3762. Further, it is also proven on the record that appellant failed to pay rent in terms RCT-26/2018 Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath Page 15 of 16 of the agreement Ex.PW-2/R-10 (also Ex.PW-1/3) and fell in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.07.2002 and the legally recoverable arrears of rent were neither paid nor tendered despite service of demand notice to the petitioner nor deposited u/s 27 of the DRC Act.
FINAL ORDER:
22. To sum up, the appellant miserably fails to establish any ground whatsoever for setting aside the impugned order/judgment dated 04.07.2018 whereby a finding was rendered that the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act are clearly made out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The present matter is remanded back to the Ld. Trial Court for consideration of issue in terms of section 14(2) of the DRC Act after examining the issue of deposit of rent under Section 15 (1) of the DRC Act. The parties shall appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 07.01.2022 for further proceedings. Digitally signed by DHARMESH DHARMESH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.12.22 22:06:38 +0530 Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA) on 22nd December, 2021 Principal District & Sessions Judge/ Rent Control Tribunal (West) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi RCT-26/2018 Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath Page 16 of 16