Delhi District Court
Allied Promoter Ltd vs Sh. Puran Lal (Deceased Through His Lrs) on 28 August, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-02 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No.DLCT03000200/2006
E-319/14/06
ARC No: 78672/16
Allied Promoter Ltd.
Krishna Niketan,
3455-64,Delhi Gate,
Delhi-110002.
Through its AR Sh. Y.K. Gupta ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Puran Lal (Deceased through his LRs)
1) Sh. Bharat Bhushan
S/o Late Sh. Prem Raj
R/o 301, DDA Janta Flat,
Khirki, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi.
2) Sh. Vijay Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Puran Lal,
R/O House No.260, Gali Gunna Missar,
Delhi Gate, New Delhi
Service be also affected to
Both the respondents
At: Krishna Niketan, 3455-64,
Delhi Gate, Delhi-110002. ...Respondents
Date of filing : 12.05.2006
Date of Judgment : 28.08.2021
JUDGMENT
ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 1
1. Brief facts of the present case are that on 12.05.2006, the petitioner filed present petition Under Section 14 (1) (a) (b) (c) (j) & 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying to this court to pass an order for eviction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of tenanted premises bearing No.3458, Delhi Gate, New Delhi as specifically shown in Red colour in the attached site plan. (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises").
2. It is inter-alia averred by the petitioner that respondents have sub-let, assigned and parted with the possession of part of the tenanted premises to other persons without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord. That the respondents have used the tenanted premises for a purpose other than for which it was let out without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord. That the respondents have caused and permitted to have caused substantial damage to the tenanted premises. That respondents have acted in contravention of the terms under which the tenant was authorised to occupy the tenanted premises and other persons are in unauthorised occupation of the tenanted premises at the instance of respondents. The company is filing the present eviction petition through its Director Sh. Y.K. Gupta who is duly authorised. That the petitioner company is the owner landlord of building bearing No.3455 to 3464, Krishna Niketan, Delhi Gate, New Delhi-110002 including the tenanted premises bearing No.3458, Krishna Niketan, Delhi Gate, New Delhi-110002. That on ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 2 15.03.1991, the respondents are said to have constituted a partnership firm in the name and style of "M/s Chunni Lal and Sons" consisting of Mr. Puran Lal and his brother Mr. Prem Raj vide partnership deed dated 18.03.1991. The respondents continued to pay the monthly rent @ Rs.50/- per month in respect of tenanted premises till January, 1992 and a copy of last rent receipt No.103 dated 17.03.1992 for Rs.300/- on account of rent paid by the respondent No.1 for period August, 1991 to January, 1992 under his signature is on record. That legal notice dated 12.11.2005 was served upon the respondents demanding arrears of rent due since 01.02.1992. The respondents have sent a reply to the legal notice dated 10.12.2005 along with a pay order dated 30.11.2005 for Rs.1800/- which is adjusted against the outstanding arrears for the rent due for period 01.02.1992 to 31.01.1995. The respondents have neither tendered nor paid the complete arrears of rent.
3. Lastly, it is prayed by petitioner that an eviction order against the respondents may be passed.
4. Written Statement was filed by the respondents in response to petition filed by the petitioner U/S 14 (1) (a) (b) (c)(j) and 22 of D.R.C Act, praying to the court to dismiss the present petition with exemplary costs.
5. In the written statement, the respondents have inter-alia ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 3 submitted that the respondents tendered rent to the landlord but the petitioner did not accept the rent from the respondents in order to create false ground for eviction. It is denied that at present two independent business firms in the name of (1) Sonrise Trading Co. Auto Works and (2) Universal Auto Works are operating from the tenanted premises illegally and unauthorizedly. It is submitted by respondents that the tenanted premises was let out to Sh. Chunni Lal who used to work along with his two sons namely Sh. Puran Lal and Sh. Prem Raj under the name and style of 'M/s Chunni Lal and Sons'. That at present Sh. Puran Lal and sons of Late Sh. Prem Raj have been looking after the business of M/s Chunni Lal and Sons from the tenanted premises. That Sh. Chunni Lal was inducted as tenant in the tenanted premises much prior to 1963. That respondents tendered the whole of the arrears of rent through money order but the petitioner refused to accept the same. That the respondents are enjoying exclusive possession of the tenanted premises occupied by them. It is denied by respondents that the respondents have caused and permitted to caused substantial damage to the tenanted premises. That the petitioner company had acquired the ownership right in respect of the tenanted premises on 30.10.1970 i.e. much after the tenancy acquired by the respondents and predecessors of the remaining respondents. That the respondents had made the payment of rent upto January 1992. Thereafter, the petitioner refused to accept rent from the respondents as they wanted to enhance the monthly rent. The respondents, thereafter, sent the amount by money order. That ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 4 misunderstanding crept in between Sh. Puran Lal and Late Sh. Prem Raj, the two brothers, resulting into the filing of civil suit. However, they settled their misunderstanding amicably and the said suit for injunction was dismissed as withdrawn. That the respondents tendered the rent of Rs.5,700/- in respect of the tenanted premises by money order. However, the petitioner refused to accept the same. Thereafter, the respondents have tendered the arrears of rent by pay order to the counsel for the petitioner. However, it is not within the knowledge of the respondents that the said pay order has been encashed by the petitioner. That the respondents Sh. Puran Lal and Late Sh. Prem Raj had given their statement before the Court and accordingly, they did not make any alterations or structural changes in the tenanted premises. They did not part with the possession of the tenanted premises by subletting the tenanted premises. It is specifically denied that the respondents had made partition in the tenanted premises. It is vehemently denied that the respondents had broken the Duchatti and raised partition between the shops by chiseling the walls. That the petitioner had filed the contempt petition on false and frivolous grounds.
Lastly it is prayed by the respondents that petition of the petitioner may be dismissed.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner examined three witnesses. PW1 Sh. Y.K. Gupta tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and relied upon several documents and was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 5 respondents at length. PW2 Sh. Sirujuddin, Record Incharge from CA(Slum) was also examined. Thereafter, again on 13.09.2017 Sh. Mukesh Chawla, UDC CA Slum was also cross-examined by Sh. Parmod Ahuja, Ld. Counsel for respondents. PW3 Sh. Ashok Kumar, UDC from Record Room (Civil) Tis Hazari Courts was also examined. Thereafter, on 13.09.2017 official from Record Room (Civil) Tis Hazari Courts produced some documents. Thereafter, petitioner evidence was closed on 01.06.2010.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent evidence was not led in the present case despite ample opportunity given by this court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by ld. Counsel for both the parties. I have also carefully gone through pleadings testimony, documents, written submissions, case law relied upon and material on record.
It is also pertinent to mention that the present petition was filed U/S 14(1)(a)(b)(c)(j) and 22 of the DRC Act but during the final arguments Ld. Counsel for petitioner submitted before the court that he is not pressing the relief U/S 14(1)(c) and 22 of DRC Act. At his request, time was granted by the court to file the application in this regard on the email ID of this court which was eventually filed and it is allowed as Ld. Counsel for the respondents has also not objected to it. As such, this court has to give the findings only qua Section 14(1)
(a)(b)(j) of DRC Act.
ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 6 It is also pertinent to mention that the present petition was originally filed by the petitioner namely "M/s Allied Switch Gear Resources Ltd." but during the course of proceedings, request on behalf of the petitioner for change of name as "Allied Promotors Ltd." was made which was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
SEC. 14(1) (a) of D.R.C. ACT:-
8. It is expedient to reproduce the relevant provision of Delhi Rent Control Act so that position may be crystal clear:-
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any tenanted premises shall be made by court or any 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 recovery of possession of the tenanted premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:- "(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole arrears of the rent legally recoverable 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, 1882 (4 of 1882)."
ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 7 As such, the following are the ingredients of section 14(1) proviso
(a) :-
(i) There should be a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
(ii) There should be a non-payment or tendering of whole arrears of legally recoverable rent within two months of service of legal notice upon the tenant given by the landlord.
9. Let us discuss the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(a) of D.R.C. Act.
(i). Relationship of Landlord and Tenant:-
10. It is well settled proposition of law that U/Sec. 14(1)(a) of D.R.C. Act, it is land lordship that matters and not the ownership of the tenanted premises. Even, U/Sec. 14(1) (e) of D.R.C. Act, a petitioner is not supposed to prove his/her ownership in absolute terms. It is also well settled that a Court of Additional Rent Controller is not supposed to decide the title of the property. It is the prerogative of the Civil Court concerned.
11. Perusal of the petition shows that in the present case, the petitioner has claimed in paragraph No.18(a)(vii), "that the petitioner company is the owner-landlord of building tenanted premises bearing No. 3455 to 3464, Krishna Niketan, Delhi Gate, New Delhi-110002 including the subject shop bearing No.3458, Krishna Niketan, Delhi Gate, New Delhi-110002. The shop No.3458, Krishna Niketan, Delhi ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 8 Gate, New Delhi-110002 is shown in red colour in the site plan."
On the other hand, in reply to such paragraph, the respondent has stated that "the contents of sub para (vii) on the petition are matter of record and needs no reply."
As such, perusal of written statement shows that the respondents have not denied the landlordship and ownership of the petitioner. Moreover, perusal of paragraph No.18, (a)(viii) also shows that the respondents have admitted themselves as statutory tenants in the tenanted premises. Moreover, paragraph No.8 of the petition is also not denied by the respondents in the written statement. Perusal of written statement shows that landlordship and ownership of the petitioner are not denied by the respondents. As such, this proves that there exist a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
As such, this ingredient is satisfied as required U/S 14(1)
(a) of DRC Act.
ii). Service of Legal Demand Notice:-
12. In the present case, the petitioner has claimed in paragraph No.18(b) of the petition, to have served legal demand notice dated 12.11.2005 Ex. PW1/8 on the respondents.
On the other hand, in reply to paragraph No.18 (b), the respondents have stated that "contents of para No. 18(b) are matter of record and need no reply."
As such respondents have not denied the service of legal demand notice as claimed by the petitioner in the petition.
As such, service of legal demand notice as prescribed u/s ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 9 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act is also proved.
(iii). Non-payment of rent:-
13. In the present petition, the petitioner has claimed in paragraph No. 18(a) xxviii "that previous notice dated 12.11.2005 was served upon the respondents thereby demanding arrears of rent due since 1st February, 1992. The respondents have sent a reply to the legal notice dated 10.12.2005 along with a pay order dated 30.11.2005 for Rs.1800/- which is adjusted against the outstanding arrears for the rent due for period 1 st February, 1992 to 31st January, 1995. The respondents have neither tendered nor paid the complete arrears of rent."
On the other hand, the respondents have claimed in paragraph No. 18(a) (xxviii) of the written statement that "that the contents of sub para xxviii on the petition are matter of record. It is submitted that the respondents were always ready to make the payment of rent."
As such bare perusal of written statement shows that the contents of 18(a)(xxviii) have not been specifically denied by the respondents in the written statement which amounts to an admission by the respondents.
Moreover, perusal of order passed U/S 15(1) of DRC Act dated 27.04.2011 also shows that LRs of the respondents were ready to deposit the rent since February, 1992 without going into point of limitation of demand. However, Ld. Predecessor directed all the respondents to deposit arrears of rent @ Rs.50/- per month for the last ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 10 three years preceding the filing of present petition. However, it was also observed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court that respondents may also deposit the rent since February, 1992 as respondents did not have any objection regarding the limitation. As such, perusal of record and order dated 15(1) of DRC Act clearly shows that payment or tendering or deposit of entire rent in compliance with the legal demand notice has not been claimed by the respondents in the written statement. Moreover, it is not sufficient for the respondents/tenants to deposit or tender or pay the rent in part in compliance with legal demand notice. It is the duty of the respondents/tenants to clear the outstanding amount of rent in entirety within two months of service of legal demand notice and if the respondents/tenants do not pay or tender or deposit the rent in entirety which they are required to do, they do it at their own costs. Perusal of written statement shows that the respondents have not specifically claimed that they complied with the legal demand notice by paying or tendering or depositing the legally entitled arrears of rent within two months of service of legal demand notice. Moreover, no evidence, at all, has been led by the respondents in the present case.
14. As such, this ingredient of non-payment of legally entitred arrears of rent within two months from the date of service of notice as provided U/Sec. 14(1) (a) of D.R.C. Act is also satisfied.
As such all the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (a) DRC Act are satisfied.
ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 11
15. Section 14(1)(b):-
"that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the tenanted premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord;"
As per Delhi Rent Control Act, Section 14 (1)(b) D.R.C. Act is one of the grounds entitling landlord to get the order of eviction against the tenant. It is well settled that subletting is not absolutely prohibited by the law or by the Delhi Rent Control Act but the subletting should be with the consent of landlord and such consent should be in writing. Section 14 (1) (b) clearly lays down that eviction may take place even when the tenant has parted with the possession of whole or part of the tenanted premises. In view of provision of law, the landlord is required to prove following essential conditions:-
(i) The tenant sub-let, assigned or parted with the possession of the whole or part of the tenanted premises. i.e. The sub tenant was in exclusive possession of property or part of the property.
(ii). No consent in writing was taken from the landlord by the tenant.
16. It is well settled that exclusive possession means the possession to the exclusion of others and it includes not only the physical possession but also the legal possession. It is also clear that parting with possession means giving possession to persons other than those ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 12 to whom possession was assigned by the lessee and parting with possession must have been by the tenant.
It is also settled that mere use by other persons is not parting with possession so long as the tenant retains the legal possession himself. Subletting takes place only when there is divesting of physical possession as well as of the right to possession. In other words, there must be vesting of possession by the tenant in other person by divesting himself not only of physical possession but also of the right to possession. So long as the tenant keeps the control with him, it cannot be said that sub-tenant is in exclusive possession of tenanted premises and in such situation the case does not fall within Section 14 (1)(b) D.R.C. Act.
The divestment or abandonment of the right to possession is always necessary to invoke the clause of parting with possession.
17. In the case titled as Vaishakhi Ram & Others Vs Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani 2008, 14 SCC, it was held as under:-
"21. It is well settled that the burden of proving subletting is on the landlord but if the landlord proves that the subtenant is in exclusive possession of the suit tenanted premises, then the onus is shifted to the tenant to prove that it was not a case of subletting."
It is well settled that initial burden to prove that sub-tenant is in exclusive possession of the suit property is on the owner. However, ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 13 the onus to prove the exclusive possession of the subtenant is that of preponderance of probability only and he has to prove the same prima- facie only and if he succeeds then the burden to rebut the same lies on the tenant.
In the case titled as Kala and another Vs. Madho Parshad Vaidya, 1998, 6 SCC, 573; the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the very same principle observing that the burden of proof of subletting is on the landlord but once he establishes parting of possession by the tenant to third party, the onus would shift on the tenant to explain his possession. If he is unable to discharge that onus, it is permissible for the court to raise an inference that such possession was for monetary consideration.
In the case titled as Prem Parkash Vs. Santosh Kumar Jain & Sons and another, 2017, law suit (SC) 872, the relevant para is as under:-
"18. sub-tenancy or subletting comes into existence when the tenant gives a possession of the tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof. This arrangement comes about obviously under a mutual agreement or understanding between the tenant and the person to whom the possession is so delivered. In this process, the landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather, the scene is enacted behind the back of the landlord, concealing the overt acts and transferring possession clandestinely to a person who is an utter stranger to the landlord, in the sense that the landlord had not let out the tenanted premises to that person nor had he allowed or consented to his ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 14 entering into possession of that person, instead of the tenant which ultimately reveals to the landlord that the tenant to whom the property was let out has put some other person in possession of that property. In such a situation, it would be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, the contract or agreement or understanding between the tenant and the subtenant. It would also be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, that the person to whom the property had been sublet, had paid monetary consideration to the tenant. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sublease. It may be paid in cash or in kind or may have been paid or promised to be paid. It may have been paid in lump sum in advance covering the period for which the tenanted premises is let out or sublet or it may have been paid or promised to have been paid periodically. Since payment of rent or monetary consideration may have been made secretly, the law does not require such payment to be proved by affirmative evidence and the court is permitted to draw its own inference upon the fact of the case."
In the case titled as Munshi Ram Vs Bhoj Ram through LRs in C.M. (M) No.1612/2010 and C.M. No.8004/2005, wherein it was observed as under:-
"It is well settled that to make out a case for subletting or parting with possession, it means giving a possession to persons other than those to whom the possession had been given by the original lessor and that parted with possession must have been made by the tenant. The word 'subletting' necessarily means transfer of an exclusive right to enjoy the property in favour of the third party."
ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 15 In the case titled as Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. Vs H.C. Sharma, 1988, 1 (SCC) 70, the Hon'ble Apex Court noted that to constitute a subletting, there must be a parting with a legal possession and whether in a particular case, there was subletting or not, was a question of fact.
It is well settled that to establish the aforesaid ingredients, the landlord must establish that tenant had completely divested himself of the suit tenanted premises and parted with possession of the suit tenanted premises of the whole or part of the tenanted premises to the sub-tenants and this should be substantiated by the evidence.
In the case titled as Praveen Saini Vs Reetu Kapur & Anr. 246 (2018) DLT 709, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi inter-alia observed as under:-
"On the aspect of admissions being binding, this Court would like to straightaway refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagindas Ramdas Vs Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram & Others, 1973 (SLT Soft) 15 (1974) 1 SCC 242, because in this judgment the Supreme Court has laid down the ratio that evidentiary admissions are different than judicial admissions. Supreme Court has held that admissions which are made in judicial proceedings are on a higher pedestal than evidentiary admissions made in the form of correspondence etc and that judicial admissions can be a basis in themselves for deciding the claim. The relevant para 27 of the judgment in the case of Nagindas Ramdas (supra) read as under:-
ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 16 "27. From a conspectus of the cases cited at the bar the principle that emerges is that if at the time of the passing of the decree, there was some material before the court, on the basis of which the court could be prima facie satisfied, about the existence of a statutory ground for eviction, it will be presumed that the Court was so satisfied and the decree for eviction apparently passed on the basis of a compromise, would be valid. Such material may take the shape either of evidence recorded or produced in the case or, it may partly or wholly be in the shape of an express or implied admission made in the compromise agreement itself. Admissions if true and clear are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admission admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admission. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof.
They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the rivalas evidence are by themselves not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong."
In the case titled as Sukhpal Singh & Anr. Vs Satbir Singh & Anr. 296 Capital Law Judgment 2012 (4), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court inter-alia observed as under:-
"4. It is important to note that the onus of proving subtenancy lies on the landlord. 0The Supreme Court in "Jagan Nath Vs Chander Bhdn, AIR 1988 ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 17 SC1362",enunciated the principles whereby once the landlord has proved that a particular portion of the demised tenanted premises has been given in exclusive possession to a stranger, then the onus shifts upon the tenant."
In the case titled as Padam Chand Jain Vs Messrs Mahabir Pershad & Sons and another, S.A.O. No.464 of 1968, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court inter-alia observed as under:-
"It is now settled by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Kedar Nath and another Vs Smt. Mohini Devi, etc. that the initial burden lies upon the landlord to establish that any of the con--ditions mentioned in the clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso exists (vide at page 170-I of the report)."
In case bearing C.M. (Main) No.172 of 2010 & C.M. Appl. Nos.2248-2249 of 2010 in case titled as M/s Udhey Bhan Ashok Kumar & Co. & Ors. vs. Neelam Kumari February 24, 2010; it was observed that :-
"4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that mere change of the constitution of firm from partnership to proprietorship would not amount to sub-tenancy. I consider that this argument is not tenable. A partnership firm is not a legal entity. It is a conglomeration of partners. A tenancy in the name of partnership firm is a joint tenancy of the partners. If none of the partners in whose favour the tenancy was created is in possession of the shop and another person, who was later on inducted as a partner and then becomes sole proprietor of the firm is in possession of the tenanted tenanted premises then it is ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 18 a clear cut case of sub-letting and parting with possession through the device of first inducting a stranger as a partner and then dissolving the partnership firm and handing over the tenanted premises to him. It makes no difference that he continues the business in the same name or that he was related to an erstwhile partner. I find no force in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed."
18. Keeping in view, the aforementioned principles of law and observations made by the Hon'ble Superior Courts, I have carefully gone through the testimonies of all the witnesses and also all the relevant documents filed on record and I have also heard the arguments advanced and I have also gone through carefully the case law relied upon.
19. Lets discuss the 1st ingredient:-
(i). the tenant sub-let, assigned or parted with the possession of the whole or part of the tenanted premises. i.e. The sub tenant was in exclusive possession of property or part of the property.
20. Perusal of petition shows that the petitioner has claimed in paragraph No. 18 (a)(ii), "that the respondents has sub-let, assign and have parted with the possession of part of the tenanted premises to other persons without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord".
ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 19
21. On the other hand, the respondent has replied in the corresponding paragraph that "the contents of para 18(ii) of the petition are patently wrong hence denied. It is vehemently denied that the respondents have sub-let, assign and have parted with the possession of part of the tenanted premises to other person without obtaining the consent of the landlord. It is submitted that the petitioner has made bald allegation without any substance. The fact remains that the respondents are enjoying exclusive possession of the shop occupied by them. It is submitted that the respondents retaining full control and domination over the single shop in question which has one gate to be locked by the respondents under them lock."
22. In the paragraph No.9 of the written statement, the respondents have stated that "the contents of para No. 9 of the petition are wrong hence denied. It is vehemently denied that the subject shop was illegally bifurcated and divided in two independent shops. It is denied that at present two independent business firms in the name of
(i) Sonrise Trading Co. Auto works (ii) Universal Auto Works, are operating from the subject shop illegally and unauthorisedly. It is submitted that the said shop was let out to Shri Chunni Lal who used to work along with his two sons namely Puran Lal and Prem Raj under the name and style of 'M/s Chunni Lal & Sons' . It is respectfully submitted that at present Shri Puran Lal & Sons of Late Prem Raj have been looking after the business of M/s Chunni Lal & Sons from the said shop".
ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 20 It is further stated in the petition:-
"The shop tenanted premises were originally let out to Mr. Chunni Lal as a single shop. After the death of Shri Chunni Lal in 1965, his legal heirs namely Mr. Puran Lal and Mr. Prem Raj were in possession of the shop. Between February 1992 to March 2001, the shop remained closed due to reported quarrels/litigations between the two brothers. In the year 2001, the subject shop was illegally bifurcated and divided in two independent shops. At present two independent business firms in the names of (1)Sonrise Trading Co. Auto Works and (2) Universal Auto Works, are operating from the subject shop illegally and unauthorisedly."
"The respondents have sub-let, assign and have parted with the possession of part of the tenanted premises to other persons without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord."
"That the respondents are legal heirs of Late Shri Chunni Lal who was a tenant since early 1963 in respect of one Ground Floor shop consisting of one room with loft in the property No.3458, Krishna Niketan, Delhi Gate, New Delhi-110002. Shri Chunni Lal died in the year 1965 and upon his death the respondents being his legal heirs became the statutory tenants qua the tenanted premises let- out to Late Shri Chunni Lal."
"That in the mean time Sh. Chunni Lal, the tenant in respect of shop bearing No.3458 forming part of the said properties, died sometime in 1965 and his two sons, namely Mr. Puran Lal and Mr. Prem Raj came into possession of the said shop tenanted premises."
"That on 15th March, 1991, the respondents are said have constituted a partnership firm in the name and style of "M/s Chunni Lal and Sons" consisting of Mr. Puran Lal
- respondent No.1 and his brother Mr. Prem Raj vide Partnership Deed dated 18.03.1991. The subject shop was vested in the partnership firm without any consent, permission or knowledge of the petitioner company."
"That on 25.03.1992, M/s Chunni Lal & Sons through his partner Mr. Puran Lal and Mr. Puran Lal filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against Mr. Prem Raj son of Mr. Chunni Lal (since deceased) and Mr. Bharat Bhushan the respondent No.2 ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 21 wherein it was alleged that respondent No.1 is a tenant of M/s Allied Switch Gear Resources Ltd. And it was further alleged that the respondent No.1 runs a business under the name and style of M/s Chunni Lal & Sons. It was further alleged that in order to expand the business, the respondent No.1 entered into partnership on 18th March, 1991 with Mr. Prem Raj (since deceased)."
"That in the said written statement dated 14.12.1998 the respondent No.1 further disclosed that a partnership firm in the nme of M/s Chunni Lal & Sons vide a written deed of partnership dated 15.03.1991 was constituted with Mr. Puran Lal and Mr. Prem Raj as partners and vesting the said shop tenanted premises into the partnership firm."
"The respondents had no authority to bifurcate or partition the subject shop without the consent of the petitioner company. Further, in March, 2001 the respondents executed the illegal bifurcation and physically divided the shop tenanted premises in two parts and created two independent shops out of the subject shop tenanted premises by dividing the same in two parts. The respondents had broken the Duchatti, raised partition between the shops by chiseling the walls, thus weakening and damaging the structure of the shop, the shutter was also removed and bifurcated to two portions and temporary erections have been made in the shop without any consent from the petitioner."
"That despite the respondents statement before the Civil Court in Suit No.354/96 and the assurances given before the Hon'ble High Court in contempt case No.290/2001, th respondents did not remove the illegal partition from the subject shop."
"That two other business establishments have been allowed to operate from the partitioned shops, by the respondents in the name and style of M/s Sonrise Trading Company ad M/s Universal Auto Works."
23. Perusal of petition shows that the petitioner has no where disclosed the name of the sub-tenant in the petition. The case of the petitioner is that the tenanted premises has been partitioned between ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 22 the respondents who are the legal heirs of Sh. Chunni Lal. It is also admitted, as quoted earlier, by the petitioner that Sh. Puran Lal and Sh. Prem Raj are sons of Sh. Chunni Lal who was let out the tenanted premises. It is also admitted by the petitioner in the petition itself that Sh. Puran Lal and Sh. Prem Raj are statutory tenants in the tenanted premises. Although, the petitioner has stated in paragraph No.18(a)(ii) that the respondents have sub-let, assigned and parted with the possession of part of the tenanted premises to other persons without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord but the petitioner has no where disclosed the name of the persons to whom such tenanted premises was sub-let or assigned or parted with. As such, the petition in respect of 14(1)(b) is vague.
In the considered view of this court, merely repetition of words as laid down in the statute is not sufficient. It has to be accompanied by facts. In the paragraph No.18(a)(viii), the petitioner has itself admitted that respondents are statutory tenants qua tenanted premises being legal heirs of Sh. Chunni Lal. The only contention of the respondent in paragraph No.18(a)(xii) is that in the year 1991 respondents have constituted a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Chunni Lal & Sons consisting of Sh. Puran Lal and Sh. Prem Raj without consent or knowledge of the petitioner. As such, in the paragraph No. 18(a)(xii), the petitioner has not claimed that tenanted premises was let out to some third person as petitioner itself has stated that partnership firm is constituted between Sh. Purn Lal and Sh. Prem Raj. However, in the paragraph No.18(a)(ix), the petitioner has stated ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 23 that Sh. Chunni Lal died in the year 1965 and his two sons Sh. Puran Lal and Sh. Prem Raj came into the possession of said tenanted premises. As such, the possession of legal heirs of Sh. Chunni Lal, i.e. Sh. Puran Lal and Sh. Prem Raj is not disputed by the petitioner in the petition itself.
24. I have minutely perused the testimony of PW1 Sh. Y.K Gupta, the relevant portion of which is as under:-
"..........I do not know to whom the tenanted tenanted premises has been sub-leted......
The portion X 1 to X 2 reflected in para No. 18(a)(iv) of the eviction petition which reflect the damage of tenanted premises I say the property in question was partitioned by a wall and one of the brother has let out one of the portion to another brother. It is wrong to suggest that tenanted premises in question was let out to Sh. Puran Chand and Prem Raj. At present, the tenanted premises is in possession of the sons of Sh. Puran Chand and Prem Raj......
............I have stated about the sub letting of the tenanted premises and the explanation thereof this property to sub-letted to the brothers. The tenanted premises was originally under the tenancy of Chunni Lal. Chuni Lal was having two sons namely Puran Lal and Prem Raj. I do not remember the name of the person to whom tenanted premises in question is sub letted by the tenant.
....It is correct that the respondents are successors of their predecessors....."
25. As such, perusal of testimony of PW1 Sh. Y.K. Gupta shows that during the cross examination also, the petitioner/PW1 has not disclosed the name of the person to whom the tenanted premises has been sub let or assigned or parted with. PW1 himself has deposed that he does not know to whom the tenanted premises has been sub-let. ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 24 Moreover, in the later part of cross examination, PW1 has claimed that tenanted premises has been partitioned by a wall and one of the brothers have let out one of the portions to another brother. As such, during the cross examination also, PW1 has failed to disclose to whom the tenanted premises has been sub-let. Although, he has claimed that one of the brothers has sub-let the portion to the other brother. But names have not specifically been disclosed which clearly shows that plea of the petitioner qua sub-tenancy is vague. Moreover, during the cross examination, it is not deposed by PW1 that the tenanted premises was sub-let, assigned or parted with to some third person other than Sh. Puran Lal and Sh. Prem Raj. Moreover, during the cross examination, PW1 has specifically admitted that tenanted premises is in possession of the sons Sh. Puran Lal and Sh. Prem Raj. As such, there is no allegation of sub-letting or assignment or parting with the possession to the third party by the respondents. Even during the cross examination conducted on 26.10.2016, PW1 has deposed that "I do not remember the name of the person to whom tenanted premises in question is sub letted by the tenant."
26. As such, PW1 again showed his inability to disclose the name of the sub lettee despite ample opportunity. Although, the petitioner has claimed in the petition that partition wall has been created but during the cross examination he himself has admitted that such wall is wooden made. During the cross examination, PW1 has also claimed that respondents tried to create third party interest in the tenanted ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 25 premises of various agencies but he could not give the details thereof such as name of such third parties and the date, month and year etc. Although, during the cross examination PW1 has claimed that one of the brothers has let out one of the portions to another brother but perusal of petition shows that the petitioner has claimed in paragraph No.18(a)(ii) that respondents have sub let, assigned and parted with the possession of part of the tenanted premises to other persons without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord. As such, the petitioner has not stated in the petition that the one of the portions of the tenanted premises has been let out by one respondent to another respondent. The plea of the petitioner in paragraph 18(a)(ii) is that respondents have sub let, assigned and parted with possession of the tenanted premises. As far as, paragraph No.18(a)(xii) is concerned, the petitioner has claimed that respondents are said to have constituted a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Chunni Lal & Sons consisting of Mr. Puran Lal and his brother Mr. Prem Raj vide partnership deed dated 18.03.1991 and the said shop of the tenanted premises was vested in the partnership firm without any consent of the petitioner company. As such, persual of such paragraph manifestly shows that the petitioner has no where claimed in the petition that tenanted premises was sub let or assigned or parted with to some third person other than Sh. Prem Raj and Sh. Puran Lal. Moreover, petition itself shows that petitioner has claimed that partnership deed was executed between Sh. Puran Lal and Sh. Prem Raj and not between the third party.
ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 26
27. It is well settled that the Petitioner/landlord has to prove prima-facie case that somebody else in the possession of the tenanted premises and once he has been able to prove it then onus shifts to the respondent/tenant to explain the reasons for presence of other person in the tenanted premises. It is also well settled that not only the physical possession but also legal possession should be parted with by the tenant/respondent to prove the sub-letting U/Sec. 14(1)(b) of D.R.C. Act.
28. In view of the exhaustive reasons and material on record, the petitioner has not been able to prove the parameters of sub-letting as discussed earlier as the petitioner itself has admitted on record that the physical possession as well as the legal possession is still with sons of Sh. Chunni Lal, i.e. Sh. Puran Lal and Sh. Prem Raj.
29. Perusal of material on record and the admissions made by the petitioner clearly shows that the respondents are still in physical and exclusive possession of the tenanted premises. And even the legal possession is also with the respondents.
30. Perusal of record shows that the petititioner has relied upon certain case law. In the considered view of this court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also exhaustive ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 27 discussion as earlier and case law as stated by this court, it is not applicable as each and every fact matters.
31. As such, in view of discussion earlier, petition U/S 14(1) (b) of DRC Act is dismissed.
32. SEC. 14(1) (j) of D.R.C. ACT:-
Section 14(1)(j) is reproduced as under:-
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any tenanted premises shall be made by court or any 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 recovery of possession of the tenanted premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
(j) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the tenanted premises."
33. Perusal of the petition shows that the petitioner has mentioned at paragraph No.18(a)(iv) that respondents have caused and permitted to have caused substantial damage to the tenanted premises. He has also mentioned in paragraph No.18(a)(xxii) that respondents have broken the duchatti, raised partition between the shops by chiseling the walls, thereby weakening and damaging the structure of the shop/tenanted premises. He has also claimed that certain walls ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 28 were removed and bifurcated into two portions and temporary erections have been made without the consent of the petitioner.
34. On the other hand, in the corresponding paragraphs, the respondents have denied these allegations and have also stated that shop in question/tenanted premises had earlier one gate having wooden doors and the same are still existing.
35. I have carefully gone through the testimony of all the witnesses, pleadings and material on record. It is expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of testimony of PW1 Sh. Y.K. Gupta which is as under:
"I have already explained about the damage of the suit tenanted premises by the tenant in para 13 of my affidavit Ex.PW1/A. The partition wall is wooden made. I have not inspected the tenanted premises therefore, I can not say the height and width of the partition wall. Vol. Respondent did not allow to enter into the tenanted premises. The respondent did not allow me to enter in the suit tenanted premises every time th partition wall was constructed/raised. I do not remember the date, moth or year of the same.....
.... I did not obtain any report from any expert/archiect about the damage caused to the suit tenanted premises. In reply to para No. 10 of my affidavit Ex.PW1/A, the respondent further tried to create third party interest of the suit tenanted premises to various agencies and they have tried to put the board thereof at the suit tenanted premises. It was the episode of long back but I could not remember the date, month & year.
..... I do not remember if any suit was previously filed or was settled as compromises. The duchhatti was mezzanine. I do not remember as to at which portion the said mezzanine was in existence. As far as, I remember the ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 29 said mezzanine was having 10 ft. height above the floor. The height of the suit tenanted premises is 16 ft. approximte. At present, I do not have any document to show the height of the suit tenanted premises is 16 ft. Or to show the existence of mezzanine floor or to show existence of one shutter or was converted into two."
36. Perusal of testimony of PW1 shows that the petitioner has been unable to satisfy the parameters as laid down by Hon'ble Superior Courts in various cases qua 14(1)(j) of DRC Act. Moreover, in the petition itself the petitioner has stated that temporary erections have been made by the respondents. Moreover, during the cross examination also, PW1 has stated that wall is made of wooden. He himself has admitted that he did not enter the tenanted premises for inspection as he was not allowed by the respondents. Moreover, not taking of report from any expert/archiect about the damage caused to the tenanted premises is also admitted by PW1 during the cross examination. As such, perusal of testimony of PW1 clearly shows that he has been unable to substantiate the parameters which are required for the purposes of 14(1)(j) of DRC Act and also guidelines and parameters as formulated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Apex Court.
37. In the considered view of this court, the petitioner has not been able to fulfil the requirements as formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Suraj Parkash Chopra Raj kumar vs Baij Nath Dhawan and Anr. 2003 III AD Delhi 705, 103 (2003) DLT 645.
ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 30
38. It is well settled that every damage to tenanted premises does not entitle the landlord to obtain the eviction order. There should be substantial damage to the tenanted premises. There should be material alteration in the tenanted premises. The onus to prove that the tenant has caused substantial damage to the property is on the landlord.
In the case titled as Shakuntla Devi Vs Avtar Singh 113 (2004) DLT 424, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that:-
"6. Having analysed the reasonings of the courts below, I am of the view that the very fact that the tenant- respondent has punctured the weight-bearing walls of the tenanted premises in question and created additional space for himself by way of parchhati equivalent to the floor area, admits of increase of weight on the load- bearing walls and certainly can be said to have caused substantial damage to the tenanted premises in question. The tenant can not damage the walls, erect additional space and yet claim that no substantial damage has been caused to the tenanted premises in question. Structural change which brings about additional load on the existing load bearing walls, is substantial damage to the tenanted premises in question. It is not necessary that the walls must crumble under additional weight to bring the mischief of the tenant under Section 14(1)(j) of the Act. Suffice to say in the facts and circumstances of the present case where the tenant has punctured holes into the walls created additional space by erecting a parchhati equivalent to the floor area of the room in question and is using the same for either storage of goods and/or residence purposes, would come within the mischief of Section 14(1)(j) of the Act. The tenant is not permitted to make any changes/alterations so as to increase load on the walls which are otherwise designed to hold the structure as was let out to the tenant".
ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 31 In the case titled as Suraj Parkash Sawhney Vs Bhagat Ram passed in S.A.O.No.328-D of 1964, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that:-
"Sub-Section (10) has been introduced as a corollary to clause (j) of the proviso to sub-section(1), and it is provided that in cases where the tenant caused a substantial damage to the demised tenanted premises the Controller may direct the tenant to carry out repairs to the damage caused to his (the Controller's) satisfaction or to pay such amount by way of compensation as the Controller may direct. The sub-section has been enacted to grant relief to the tenant causing substantial damage to the demised tenanted premises in case he is prepared to undo the damage caused by him. Sub-section (10), however, does not make it imperative for the Controller to give a choice to the tenant either to repair the damage or to pay the compensation. It would in my view, depend upon the circumstances of each case for the Controller to decide as to whether he should make an order calling upon the tenant to repair the damages or to pay an amount by way of compensation and to mould his directions accordingly. The Controller is vested with a discretion in the matter which must be exercised judicially looking to the facts of each case, and it is for the Controller to decide as to what type of order contemplated by sub- section (10) should be made by him. In a case like the present if the order were not for the construction of the intervening wall but only for payment of a paltry compensation of Rs.200/- which would, according to Mr. Hardy, be the cost of constructing the wall, there would always be a danger of the entire building falls down because of the demolition of the wall which was supporting roof. The payment of compensation in a case like the present wall hardly be the proper relief and as such the Additional Controller and Tribunal were in my opinion fully justified in direct the tenant construct the intervening wall in case he wanted to avoid his eviction in Appeal No.328-D of 1964 is consequently dismissed."
In the case titled as Suraj Parkash Chopra Raj Kumar vs ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 32 Baij Nath Dhawan and Anr. 2003 III AD Delhi 705, 103 (2003) DLT 645, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:-
"(i) the onus of proving that the tenant has caused substantial damage to the demised tenanted premises is upon the landlord;
(ii) landlord must prove that addition and alteration in the tenancy tenanted premises is carried out by the tenant;
(iii) tenant has made his construction without the consent of landlord;
(iv) the said construction has materially affected the tenancy tenanted premises and further that the construction which had been carried out by the tenant had materially altered the tenanted premises;
(v) Court must determine the nature, character of the construction and the extent to which they make changes in the structure of the tenanted premises having regard to the purpose for which the tenanted premises have been let out;
(vi) landlord has to prove it by cogent evidence and wherever necessary expert witness should be examined;
(vii) an eviction order under Clause (j) could be passed if the tenant has carried out such additions or alterations and structural changes in the tenancy tenanted premises which had brought about material impairment in the value and utility of tenanted premises;
(viii) every construction or alteration does not impair the value and utility of the building and that construction must be of material nature which should substantially diminish the value of the building either from commercial and monetary point of view or from utilisation aspect of the building;
(ix) a temporary alteration or addition which can be easily repaired without causing damage to the structure is not substantial damage to the tenancy tenanted premises;
(x) every change, addition or alteration in the tenancy tenanted premises will not invite eviction of the tenant under Clause (j) and that each case would depend upon its own facts; and
(xi) the impairment of the value and utility of the building is to be seen from the point of view of the landlord and not tenant."
ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 33
39. I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties keeping in view the guidelines and observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court.
40. Perusal of material on record clearly shows that petitioner has not been able to prove the parameters of 14(1)(j) of D.R.C. Act and also as formulated by the Hon'ble Superior Courts.
41. As discussed earlier, It is well settled law that all the alterations and additions in the tenanted premises are not substantial damage and the duty is always on the landlord to prove that such alterations and additions have caused substantial damage to his tenanted premises. It is well settled that every damage is not substantial damage. It is also well settled that every construction or alteration does not impair the value and utility of the building and that construction must be of material nature which should substantially diminish the value of the building either from commercial and monetary point of view or from utilisation aspect of the building. It is also clear that every change, addition or alteration in the tenanted premises will not invite eviction of the tenant under Clause (j) and each case depends upon its own facts.
42. Perusal of record manifestly shows that petitioner has miserably failed to prove the fact that alteration or addition by the respondent has diminished the value of the building either from ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 34 commercial or monetary point of view or from utilisation aspect of the building.
43. Perusal of record shows that the petititioner has relied upon certain case law. In the considered view of this court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also exhaustive discussion as earlier and case law as stated by this court, it is not applicable as each and every fact matters.
44. In view of settled law as mentioned earlier and peculiar facts of the present case, the petition U/S 14(1) (j) is dismissed.
CONCLUSION :-
45. In view of exhaustive reasons and material on record, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the ingredients of section 14(1)
(b) and (j) of DRC Act. Accordingly, the petition under section 14(1)
(b) and (j) of DRC Act is dismissed.
46. However, In view of earlier discussion and settled proposition of law, this court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has satisfied all the ingredients of Section 14(1)(a) of D.R.C. Act in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. No.3458, Delhi Gate, New Delhi as shown red in the site plan Ex PW1/3.
ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 35
47. It is pertinent to mention that an order dated 27.04.2011 U/Sec. 15(1) D.R.C. Act was passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court inter-alia directing the respondents to deposit the arrears rent @ Rs. 50/- per month for the last three years preceding the filing of present petition till date of order and further rent at the same rate per month every 15th of each succeeding month.
48. As such, in view of the material on record and discussion as earlier, an modified order is passed U/S 15(1) of DRC Act directing the respondents to pay or tender or deposit the rent w.e.f. 12.05.2003(as the date of filing of present petition is 12.05.2006) @ Rs.50/-, along with simple interest 15% p.a. within one month from today and also the future rent at the same rate on or before 15 th of each succeeding English Calender month.
49. Nazir is directed to file his report on 29.11.2021 regarding compliance of both the orders under section 15(1) of DRC Act, i.e. dated 27.04.2011 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court and dated 28.08.2021 passed by this court.
50. Perusal of record shows that the defence of the respondents was struck off u/s 15 (7) of DRC Act by Ld. Predecessor of this court as respondents failed to make payment in compliance with the order u/s 15 (1) of DRC Act.
ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 36
51. However, this aspect shall be dealt with separately by this court while ascertaining whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit u/s 14 (2) of DRC Act or not.
52. Miscellaneous file be prepared for ascertaining the benefits U/Sec. 14(2) of the D.R.C. Act.
53. This file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced on 28th August, 2021 Digitally signed (This judgment contains 37 pages) AJAY by AJAY NAGAR Date:
NAGAR 2021.08.28
14:47:45 +0530
(Ajay Nagar)
Additional Rent Controller-2,
Central District, THC, Delhi.
ARC No. 78672/16 Allied Promoters Ltd. Vs Sh. Puran Lal(Deceased through his LRs) 37