Delhi District Court
Sh. Sajjan Kumar vs M/S Manohar Lal Ishwar Prasad on 12 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-02 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No.DLCT03-005743/2018
ARC No: 734/18
E.No-115/18
Sh. Sajjan Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Shyam Lal Goel,
R/o 1461, Gali Arya Samaj,
Bazar Sita Ram,
Delhi-110006. .....Petitioner
VERSUS
M/s Manohar Lal Ishwar Prasad
Through its proprietor
Shrri Arun Kumar,
Shop No.1077/12, Kucha Natwa
Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006. ......Respondent
Date of filing : 04.09.2018
Date of Judgment : 12.10.2021
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case is that on 04.09.2018, petitioner filed present petition Under Section 14 (1) (a) 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 ARC No. 734/18 Sajjan Kumar Vs M/s Manohar Lal Ishwar Prasad 7 petitioner and against the respondent in respect of premises bearing No. one shop no. 1077/12, Ground Floor, forming part of property No. 1077-1078, Kucha Natwa, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 more 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 respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.07.2014 @ Rs.598.95 paise per month which the respondent has failed to pay despite repeated demands and requests made by the petitioner and despite the service of the legal demand notice dated 10.05.2015; that since the rent prior to three years have become time barred yet the respondent/tenant is liable to pay rent for the period w.e.f. 01.08.2015 till 31.07.2018 @ Rs.658.85 paise per month with interest @ 15% p.a; lastly, it is prayed by petitioner that an eviction order against the respondent may be passed.
3. Written Statement was filed by the respondent in response to petition filed by the petitioner U/S 14 (1) (a) of D.R.C Act, praying to the court to dismiss the present petition with exemplary costs.
4. In the written statement, the respondent has inter-alia submitted that Sh. Dharmendar Kumar Goyal S/o Late Sh. Shyam Lal Goyal who is also the real brother of the petitioner, has been receiving the rentals from the answering respondent @ 660/- p.m; Sh. ARC No. 734/18 Sajjan Kumar Vs M/s Manohar Lal Ishwar Prasad 7 Dharmendar Kumar Goyal has instructed the respondent to ignore the legal notice dated 10.05.2015; Sh. Dharmendar Kumar Goyal has received the rentals in respect of the tenanted premises for the period till 30.11.2018; that Sh. Dharmendar Kumar Goyal son of deceased landlord Smt. Satyawati after her death started receiving the rental from the respondent and assured the respondent that as and when a full and final settlement would be arrived at among the legal heirs of Smt. Satyawati qua the estates left by her, the rent receipts would be executed in favour of the answering respondent qua the rentals received; lastly it is prayed by the respondent that petition of the petitioner may be dismissed.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner examined himself as PW1. PW1 Sh. Sajjan Kumar tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and relied upon several documents and was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent at length. Thereafter, petitioner evidence was closed on 14.10.2019.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent evidence was not led in the present case despite ample opportunity given by this court and right of the respondent to lead respondent evidence was closed on 20.09.2021.
(i) Landlordship:
ARC No. 734/18 Sajjan Kumar Vs M/s Manohar Lal Ishwar Prasad 7
7. Perusal of record shows that in the present case, the landlordship of the petitioner is not disputed by the respondent as in reply to the paragraph no.1 to 10 of the petition, the respondent has replied that "that the contents of the eviction petition from paras 1 to 10 are not denied."
8. Moreover, in paragraph No.14 of the written statement, the respondent has admitted the landlordship of the mother of petitioner as he has also admitted to have paid rent to his mother. In addition to this, the petitioner has placed on record rent receipt Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/2A.
9. Perusal of written statement and material on record manifestly shows that there exists the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties.
10. As such, this ingredient of Section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act is satisfied.
(ii) Legal Demand Notice:
11. Perusal of record shows that the service of legal demand notice dated 10.05.2015 has not specifically been denied by the respondent in the written statement. Moreover, he himself has stated in paragraph No. 11 of the written statement that "Sh. Dharamender Kumar Goyal ARC No. 734/18 Sajjan Kumar Vs M/s Manohar Lal Ishwar Prasad 7 has instructed to respondent to ignore the legal demand notice dated 10.05.2015."
12. As such, record clearly shows that legal demand notice dated 10.05.2015 Ex.PW1/4 was served upon the respondent.
In view thereof, this ingredient is also satisfied.
(iii) Non payment of rent:
13. Perusal of the petition shows that in the present case, the petitioner has claimed that the respondent is liable to pay rent w.e.f. 01.08.2015 till 31.07.2018 @ Rs.658.85 paise per month.
On the other hand, the resondent has claimed in the written statement that Sh. Dharmendar Kumar Goyal, who is the real brother of the petitioner, has received the rents for the period till 30.11.2018.
14. Perusal of written statement shows that although the respondent has claimed to have paid rent upto November, 2018 to Sh. Dharmendar Kumar Goyal but in the paragraph No. 14 itself, he has clarified that he is not in possession of rent receipts as these were not issued by Sh. Dharamendar Kumar Goyal stating the pendency of full and final settlement amongest the LRs of Smt. Satyawati.
15. Perusal of record shows that in the present case, the respondent has not led his evidence despite ample opportunity given by Ld. ARC No. 734/18 Sajjan Kumar Vs M/s Manohar Lal Ishwar Prasad 7 Predecessor of this court and by this court. As such, the factum of payment of rent to Sh. Dharamender Kumar Goyal has been squarely unsupported by any oral or documentary evidence.
16. It is well settled that it is the duty of the tenant to prove that he has paid the whole rent to the landlord and nothing is outstanding against him. But in the present case, material on record manifestly shows that the respondent has miserably failed to discharge his duty.
As such, record clearly shows that this ingredient of Section 14(1)(a) is also satisfied.
CONCLUSION:-
17. In view of discussion as earlier, the petitioner has been able to satisfy all the ingredients of Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act.
18. Perusal of record shows that an order dated 17.01.2019 U/S 15(1) of DRC Act was passed by the Ld. Predecessor of the court directing the respondent to pay the entire arrears of rent (if due) at the admitted rate of Rs.658.85/- per month w.e.f 01.08.2015 till date (date of order) with interest @ 15% p.a. upon the delayed payment within one month from the date of order and also directed the respondent to continue to deposit the future rent at the same rate to the peitioner on or before 15th of Each English Calander Month.
ARC No. 734/18 Sajjan Kumar Vs M/s Manohar Lal Ishwar Prasad 7
19. In view of record and discussion as earlier, there is no requirement of modifying the order already passed U/S 15(1) of DRC Act.
20. Hence, Nazir is directed to file his report in respect of compliance of order dated 17.01.2019 passed U/S 15(1) of DRC Act to ascertain whether the respondent is entitled to benefit U/S 14(2) of DRC Act or not. Report be filed on 10.11.2021.
21. Misc. file be prepared for ascertaining the benefit U/S 14(2) of DRC Act.
22. This file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced on 12th October, 2021. Digitally signed (This judgment contains 07 pages) AJAY by AJAY NAGAR Date:
NAGAR 2021.10.12
15:30:05 +0530
(Ajay Nagar)
Additional Rent Controller-2,
Central District, THC, Delhi.
ARC No. 734/18 Sajjan Kumar Vs M/s Manohar Lal Ishwar Prasad 7