Delhi District Court
Sh. Gurdeep Singh vs Sh. Anil Kumar Chawla on 27 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR, CCJ-CUM-ARC (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
E-297/11
Sh. Gurdeep Singh
S/o Late Sh. Gurchanran Singh
R/o J-137, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi.
......Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Anil Kumar Chawla
S/o SH. Chunni Lal Chawla
B0 373, Meera Bagh,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi.
Also to be served at:
G-133, First Floor,
Pushkar Enclave, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi.
......Respondent
Date of institution : 24/10/2011
Date of order : 27/08/2012
ORDER
Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application U/o 12 rule 6 CPC moved on behalf of the petitioner.
1. Arguments on application heard. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the landlord of the tenanted premises bearing no. J-137, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, comprising of one shop. It is further submitted that the rate of rent of the tenanted premises is Rs. 1,827/- per month which has been enhanced to Rs. 2009.70/- per month. It is further E-297/11 Gurdeep Singh Vs. Anil Kumar Chawla 1/3 submitted that legal notice has already been served upon the respondent and even the respondent tendered the rent after service of legal notice, but it was in joint name of the petitioner alongwith his brother, due to it was not accepted. It is further submitted that even the interest @ 15% per annum was not paid alongwith the arrears of rent and even enhanced rent was also not paid despite service of legal notice and the petitioner is entitled for eviction order on admissions.
2. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions, but it is admitted that the rate of rent of the tenanted premises is Rs. 1,827/- per month. It is further admitted that the respondent had sent a demand draft after the service of legal notice to the petitioner, but the same was not accepted by the petitioner. It is further admitted that 15% interest was not paid alongwith the arrears of rent and even rent was enhanced @ 10% per annum which was not paid. It is submitted that the rent was sent to petitioner within the period alongwith reply to notice and its amount to valid tender of the rent and the petitioner is not entitled for any judgment on admissions.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. The relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted between the parties and even rate of rent @ Rs. 1,827/- per month is admitted by the respondent. It is further admitted that the respondent has paid the rent up to 31/07/2008 and thereafter a demand draft was sent to the petitioner after the service of legal notice. Admittedly, demand draft was sent in the joint name of the petitioner i.e. Sh. Gurdeep Singh and his brother Sh. Jasvinder Singh who had no interest in the tenanted premises, due to a demand draft of Rs. 76,000/- was returned being not a valid tender. Even otherwise it has been held in Phalwant singh V. Jai Narain, 1980 RLR 558 and 2002 RLR 385 (SC) titled Gopi Chand Vs. Jain Plastic that a payment of rent by DDs/cheque is not a valid tender of rent, if it E-297/11 Gurdeep Singh Vs. Anil Kumar Chawla 2/3 is not an agreed mode of payment. Further the respondent was liable to deposit the rent with the Court U/ s 27 of DRC Act, if rent was refused as held in Sarla Goel & Ors. Vs. Kishan Chand, 2009 VII (SC) 809. In fact the respondent did not tendered the rent despite the service of legal notice. As per section 28 of DRC Act, if the tenant is in arrears of rent then he is liable to pay interest @ 15% per annum against the outstanding rent. It is held in 2006 RLR 58 titled Ram Parkash Vs. D. N. Srivastava that a tenant is liable to deposit arrears of rent alongiwth interest @ 15% per annum. As such respondent was liable to pay interest and without interest it was not a valid tender. Further after the service of legal notice of enhancement of rent, the rent stood enhanced in pursuance of section 6 A r/w section 8 of DRC Act, immediately after the service of legal notice. It has been held in West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Asha Kapoor, 2007 (97) DRS 548 that service of legal notice is sufficient to increase 10% rent. In fact, legal notice was duly served upon the respondent and the rent stood enhanced to Rs. 2009.70/- per month w.e.f 01/09/2011, but the same was not paid. As such, the respondent has admitted all the facts of the petition and petitioner is entitled for judgment on admissions. Application of the petitioner is hereby allowed.
Dated:-27/08/2012 (Devender Kumar)
Announced in open Court. CCJ-cum-ARC (West)
Room No. 139, Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi.
E-297/11 Gurdeep Singh Vs. Anil Kumar Chawla 3/3