Delhi High Court
P.T. Dhara Dutt vs P.N. Nagpal on 3 January, 2006
Equivalent citations: 126(2006)DLT293
Author: R.S. Sodhi
Bench: R.S. Sodhi
JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. SAO 40/1997 is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, in RCA No. 954/1995 dated 06.10.1997 whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 20.10.1995 and directed the parties to appear before the Rent Controller and proceed in accordance with law.
2. Facts of the case are that the Landlord-respondent filed RCA 954/1995 under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act impugning the order dated 20.10.1995 passed by the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the Execution Petition seeking warrants of possession due to non-compliance of the judgment dated 26.04.1970. It was contended before the Tribunal that the aforesaid judgment was hypothetical and also that the requirement of notice had been met and that the tenant was well informed of the demand raised by the LandDO. It was also contended that the judgment dated 26.04.1970 stands fully complied with and that the impugned order of the DRC dated 20.10.1995 was bad.
3. The Tribunal while dealing with this case came to the conclusion in paragraph 5 to the following effect:-
In the instant case the appellant/landlord had moved an execution application before the trial court on 18.4.91 claiming that the LandDO was in league with the tenant and despite best efforts had not intimated the penalty for mis-user after 5.1.79 nor has intimated whether the L and D.O. was not inclined to condone future mis-user. Notice of this execution application was issued to the tenant and the LandDO. The LandDO had submitted a statement before the trial court on 2.4.93 giving details of mis-user charges in respect of garrage measuring 120 sq.ft. From 15.1.86 up to 14.7.93 and different rates for different periods amounting to Rs. 25,142/- and 1/16th penalty thereon at the rate of 10%. The total mis-user charges Along with penalty thus came to Rs. 27657/-. The tenant/respondent through his counsel Shri O.P.Sharma sent a undated notice to the appellant in para 3 of which it was mentioned that the LandDO had informed the court of Shri P.D.Gupta, ARC, that a penalty of Rs. 2515/- has been imposed by the LandDO and if his client deposits the same by 14.7.93 the breaches will be condoned. This was in total violation of the statement filed by LandDO which had directed for payment of Rs. 27657/- as mis-user charges and penalty besides interest at the rate of 10% to be paid and after compliance of other terms like undertaking on non-judicial stamp paper that the breaches shall be removed by 14.7.93 or to get regularised on payment of charges after 14.7.93. The appellant/landlord immediately sent a reply dated 29.5.93 by registered post to, Shri Om Prakash, Advocate. It has been filed by the respondent/tenant himself. In this reply the landlord had informed the tenant through his counsel that the amount of mis-user charges calculated by L and DO was Rs. 27,657/- and not Rs. 2515/- remitted to him by bank draft so that he was constrained to return back the draft. The landlord also warned the tenant that the exact amount payable was known to him and he had not made the payment and he will be liable for consequences. Despite admitted service of this communication as stipulated by the judgment of Shri Bahri passed on 26.4.79 the tenant did not comply the directions of the learned R.C.T. In depositing the mis-user charges amounting to Rs. 27,657/- along with interest at the rat of 10% thereon as stipulated by statement of the LandDO within one month. Thus the consequences stipulated in the judgment of the R.C.T. dated 26.4.79 had to be visited the respondent/tenant for deemed eviction order under clause (k) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. and consequently, allowed the appeal. It is contended before me by learned counsel for the petitioner that notice so given by the landlord to the tenant was not in strict compliance of the order dated 26.4.1970 and, therefore, cannot be treated as valid notice. He also contends that the LandDO by its notification dated 22.03.1983 has condoned the breaches, inasmuch as the premises-in-question can be used for the purposes of running vegetable shop, kiriana shop and also pan and bidi shop. Counsel, therefore, submits that the order under challenge is bad.
4. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the Tribunal has rightly held that the tenant had full knowledge and was put to notice of the amount raised by the LandDO and that the tenant had even taken objections thereto. It is too late in the day for him to say that notice, as required by the judgment dated 26.04.1970, has not been given to the tenant. He further contends that as regards condonable breaches it is not the case of the tenant that he is residing in the premises but it is his case that he is carrying out the aforesaid businesses in the garage, which specifically is not condonable.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record of the case. It appears to me that the tenant was very much put to notice that the LandDO has demanded a sum of Rs. 27,657/-(rupees twenty seven thousand six hundred and fifty seven) as penalty for misuse of the premises-in-question and also the tenant had acknowledged the demand so raised by the LandDO in his reply where he admits that the penalty is of Rs. 2,515/- (rupees two thousand five hundred and five) and that he will be depositing the same. This was again replied to by the landlord to say that he had misread the amount claimed by the LandDO as it was Rs. 27,657/-(rupees twenty seven thousand six hundred and fifty seven). With all these communications, it can hardly be said that the tenant had no notice or was not put to notice of demand raised by the LandDO.
6. As regards the condonable breaches, annexure A makes it quite clear that the breach of the nature committed by the petitioner herein is not condonable and the affidavit of the Union of India to this effect has also been perused.
7. In that view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the order under challenge.
8. SAO 40/1997 is dismissed.