Delhi District Court
Sh. Ghanshyam Singh vs Sh. Dhan Prakash Saini on 29 November, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. P. SINGH: ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
(SOUTH EAST), SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
EV 08/13
Unique case ID No. 02406C0192472013
Sh. Ghanshyam Singh,
s/o Sh. Kale Singh,
r/o 20/10, Gali no. 4, Amrit PuriB,
Garhi Jharia Maria, near East of Kailash,
New Delhi - 110065. ........... Petitioner
Vs.
Sh. Dhan Prakash Saini,
s/o Sh. Daya Ram,
r/o 20/10, Gali no. 4, Amrit PuriB,
Garhi Jharia Maria, near East of Kailash,
New Delhi - 110065. ......... Respondent
Date of institution 11.04.2013
Arguments heard on 06.11.2013
Judgment pronouncement on 29.11.2013
JUDGMENT
(On petitioner's application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Order XV Rule I and section 151 CPC)
1. This is an eviction petition under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') on the ground of second default in matter relating to payment of monthly rental in respect of portion (one room, one kitchen, common user of store room with open verandah in front, common bathroom and adjoining watered closet) on ground floor of property bearing no. 20/10, Gali no. 4, Amrit PuriB, Garhi Jharia Maria, near East of Kailash, Delhi, as shown in the site plan Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 1/18 bounded by red colour.
2. On 14.05.2009 petitioner instituted an eviction petition (E382/09) under clause (a) of proviso to section 14 (1) of the Act against the respondent on the ground of first default in matter of payment of monthly rental. Respondent contested the case. Vide order dt. 07.05.2010 Ld. Additional Rent Controller (South), Delhi passed an order under section 15 (1) of the Act, the operative portion of which reads as follows:
Having gone through the entire record, I deem it fit to direct the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.09.08 at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ per month in the court within one month and thereafter continue to deposit the aforesaid rate of rent month by month by 10th of each succeeding English calender month. Now list the case for 06.08.10.
3. Petitioner avers that during pendency of aforesaid eviction petition (E382/2009) he had served upon the respondenttenant a notice dt. 25.07.2010 under section 6A read with section 8 of the Act thereby intimating the latter the exercise of option conferred upon the former by statute (enhancement of rentals by 10% over and above the then prevailing rate of rent, i.e. Rs. 1,000/ per month). He goes on to aver that notice dt. 25.07.2010 was admittedly served upon the respondenttenant, but the latter did not respond thereto or refute the contents thereof. It is thus urged that by operation of law the monthly rentals in respect of the tenanted premises stood enhanced with effect from 01.09.2010 to Rs. 1,100/, exclusive of other charges. Petitioner submits that on or about 04.10.2010 he had moved before the court of learned Additional Rent Controller (South), Delhi praying that the earlier order dt. 07.05.2010 be suitably modified keeping in view Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 2/18 the text of the notice dt. 25.07.2010. He goes on to submit that contemporaneously, with the institution of this application, the office copy of the aforesaid notice dt. 25.07.2010 as also the original postal receipt evidencing the dispatch of the aforesaid notice (besides the original certificate of posting) were also filed on the judicial record of eviction petition no. E382/2009. It is stated that ironically, the office copy of aforesaid notice dt. 25.07.2010, the original postal receipt as also the original certificate of posting filed on the judicial record way back in October, 2011 are now 'missing' from the judicial file. It is stated that notwithstanding the receipt of the notice dt. 25.07.2010, respondenttenant did not pay or deposit the escalated rental and he continued to deposit the monthly rental in court at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ per month up till 31.05.2012 (and not thereafter).
4. Parties led their evidence in the eviction petition no. E382/09. At the end of the trial, vide judgment dated 26.09.2011, the petition under clause (a) of proviso to section 14 (1) of the Act against the respondent on the ground of first default in matter of payment of monthly rental was held to be successful. The operative portion of the judgment dt. 26.09.2011 reads as follows:
"As the grounds u/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act is held to be successful, the respondent has been first defaulter and in case of first defaulter statutory protection u/s 14 (2) of DRC Act is available to the respondent. Let Nazir report be called vide separate miscellaneous file as to whether the respondent has complied the orders u/s 15 (1) of DRC Act passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 07.05.2010 for considering the grant of benefit u/s Section 14 (2) of DRC Act to the respondent being the case of first default."
5. Judgment dt. 26.09.2011 attained its finality as it was not challenged in Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 3/18 the higher forum. As directed, a separate miscellaneous file (M30/11) was maintained to determine whether the respondenttenant had made compliance of section 15 (1) of the Act. Vide order dt. 03.01.2013 the separate miscellaneous file (M30/11) was disposed of by holding that the respondenttenant had made compliance of the order passed under section 15 (1) of the Act, and that he was entitled to the statutory protection of the Act. Operative portion of the Order dt. 03.01.2013 reads as follows:
Therefore, respondent having complied with the orders passed u/s 15(1) DRC Act is entitled to statutory protection under 14 (2) DRC Act. No order as to costs. File be consigned to Record Room.
6. Soon thereafter, the petitionerlandlord issued a notice in vernacular Hindi, dispatched on 08.01.2013 by post, in particular by speed post, to the respondenttenant thereby calling upon the latter to pay unto the former the legally recoverable arrears of rent in respect of tenanted premises along with interest accrued thereon at the prescribed statutory rates. It is stated that the aforesaid notice was duly served upon the respondenttenant in normal course of business of the post office. Petitioner submits that notwithstanding due service of the notice in vernacular Hindi, dispatched on 08.01.2013, respondenttenant did not tender or pay anything even though he was in substantial arrears of rent.
7. The petitionerlandlord challenged the order dt. 03.01.2013 by way of an appeal under section 38 of the Act which is presently sub judice before the learned District Judge / Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Saket Court, Delhi.
8. The present eviction petition was thereafter instituted seeking eviction of the respondenttenant on the following grounds: (A) Respondenttenant who Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 4/18 was admittedly served with notice dt. 25.07.2010 under section 6A read with section 8 of the Act intimating him about the enhancement of rentals by 10% over and above the then prevailing rate of rent, i.e. Rs. 1,000/ per month has not complied with the same as he did not pay or deposit the escalated rental and he continued to deposit the monthly rental in court at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ per month up till 31.05.2012. (B) Respondent deposited rent in the court up till 31st May, 2012 (and not thereafter) @ Rs. 1,000/ per month under section 15 (1) of the Act. It is thus urged that the rent deposited for the period after 26.09.2011 till 31.05.2012 is of no consequence as the order under section 15 (1) of the Act lapsed on 26.09.2011. (C) Notwithstanding receipt of letter dispatched by the petitioner on 08.01.2013 calling upon the respondent to pay the legally recoverable arrears of rent along with interest accrued thereon at the prescribed statutory rate, the latter did not pay the same within within two months of receipt of the notice.
9. Respondent filed his written statement on 10.07.2013. His stand is that notwithstanding the adjudication dt. 26.09.2011 there does not exist relationship of landlordtenant between the petitioner and him as the former purchased the property from Sh. Shyam Sunder Goswami and stepped into his shoes without even disclosing to him that he purchased the same. Due to this, respondent goes on to state, he filed a suit for permanent injunction, which he later on withdrew on statement of parties. He, however, does not deny that he is in occupation of the premises as a tenant. He adds that he is paying monthly rental of Rs. 1,000/ since year 2008 to the petitioner. He states that the premises under his occupation as tenant consists of one room, one kitchen, one store room, exclusive bathroom / Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 5/18 toilet and common verandah. He has termed the petitioner's site plan as wrong.
10. He asserts that he has duly complied with the aforesaid order dt. 07.05.2010 passed under section 15 (1) of the Act. He states that petitioner's notice under section 6A read with section 8 of the Act was not befitting any reply from his side being void as it was an unilateral increment, there existed no relationship of landlordtenant and that three years has not elapsed since the date of purchase of the property by petitioner. It is submitted that this aspect has been adverted to in the order dt. 03.01.2013. He goes on to state that he deposited the monthly rent @ Rs. 1,000/ per month in the court of Additional Rent Controller under section 15 (1) DRC Act up till 31.05.2013. His averment in this regard is reproduced verbatim as follows: "It is a matter of record that Rs. 1,000/ per month is deposited till 31.05.2013 the said payment for made under the order Hon'ble Court 7.5.2010 passed by the Hon'ble. Court of Sh. Kuldeep Narayan ARC South where the Hon'ble Court ordered to deposit rent Rs. 1,000/ per month since Sept, 2008 which order was duly complied." He submits that there is no law which can make the order dt. 07.05.2010 lapse. He denies that the deposits made by him for the period after passing of the judgment dt. 26.09.2011 are inconsequential. With respect to petitioner's notice dispatched on 08.01.2013 to him, this is what he has to say, "It is submitted that the said said letter was not replied as the month pertaining to the referred non payment were duly deposited in the court vide various challans which was duly reported by the Naib Nazir for which Hon'ble Court of Sh. Balwant Rai Bansal then ARC had order and compliance order was passed. And thereafter vide order dated 3.1.2013, the matter was consigned to record room after checking that the deposit have been Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 6/18 made that the respondent entitled to statutory protection under 14 (2) DRC Act.
Hence, the undated letter sent 8.1.2013 has no sanctity under the eyes of law hence denied." Denying other averments, the respondent seeks dismissal of the present case.
11. Petitioner filed his replication wherein he reiterated his averments in the petition. In addition thereto he states that the notice dispatched by him on 08.01.2013 was served upon the respondent on 09.01.2013 by the concerned post office, as reflected in the postal certificate dt. 23rd April, 2013.
12. Now to the averments in the application under consideration. It is stated that the judgment dt. 26.09.2011 has attained finality and the relationship of landlord and tenant is not in dispute. It is also stated that the tenant paying rent @ Rs. 1,000/ per month is also not in dispute. It is submitted that the notice of demand having been served upon the respondent is also not in dispute. It is stated that even after receipt of the notice, the respondent did not tender the arrears of rent along with the interest within two months of receipt of the notice. It is also stated that despite receiving the notice, the tenant did not pay the outstanding arrears of rent together with interest within two months of receipt of the communication. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks adjudication upon the aforesaid application in his favour.
13. Respondent replied to the application, whereby he sought dismissal of the application. He states that he was never in arrears of rent. He submits that the said letter posted on 09.01.2013 is not a demand notice in the eyes of law as it is a letter by the petitioner in person. It is also stated by him that the petitioner could not have filed the present proceedings in the face of the fact that an appeal against Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 7/18 the order dated 03.01.2013 is already sub judice. He further states that he nevertheless deposited the rent in the concerned court. Denying other averments, he seeks dismissal of the application.
14. Petitioner relied upon the following judgments: (A) Puneet Bajaj vs. Baldev Kumar Pahwa, 2010 (170) DLT 134 - Deposit of rent through challans signed in a routine manner without there being any order is of no consequence. (B) Smt. Raj Rani vs. Sh. Gian Chand, 1986 (11) DRJ 82 and M/s H M Doyal & Sons & Ors. vs. Ram Nath Chitkara & Ors., AIR 1986 Del 101 - It is not necessary that the notice of demand shall state the amount due from the tenant. (C) Ramachandra Ganesh Kulkarni & Anr. vs. Laxman Hari Mainkar & Ors., 1988 (1) RCR 314 - Notice of demand of rent by the landlord has to be construed in a liberal manner. (D) National Textile Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Ashval Vaderra, 167 (2010) DLT 602 and Madan Lal Kaushik vs. Shree Yog Mayaji Temple & Ors., 178 (2011) DLT 398- Admission need not be made expressly in the pleadings and even on constructive admission court can proceed to pass a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Admissions de hors pleadings can also be considered. (E) Rakesh Kumar & Anr. vs. Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd., AIR 1988 SC 976 - Notice of demand must be read in common sense point of view bearing in mind how it is understood by ordinary people.
15. Respondent relied upon the following judgments: (A) State Bank of India vs. Midland Industries & Ors., AIR 1988 Del 153 and Premsuk Das Assaram vs. Udairam Gunga Bux, AIR 1918 Calcutta 467 - Judgment on admission by the defendant under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is not a matter of right Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 8/18 and rather is a matter of discretion of the court. (B) R. K. Markan vs. Rajiv Kumar Markan, 2003 AIHC 632 (633) Delhi - For passing a decree on the basis of admission, the admission must be unequivocal and unqualified. (D) Himani Alloys Ltd. vs. Tata Steel Ltd., 2011 (3) Civil Court Cases 721 Judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is a matter of discretion of the court and the admission must be clear and unambigious.
16. I have heard arguments at Bar and perused the record of the case.
17. Before I proceed to give my findings, it is to be noted that Ld. Additional Rent Controller (South), Delhi in his order dt. 03.01.2013 has made some observations visavis the notice dt. 25.07.2010 issued by the petitioner under section 6A read with section 8 of the Act thereby demanding from the respondent enhanced rentals (10% over and above the then prevailing rate of rent, i.e. Rs. 1,000/ per month). An appeal against the order dt. 03.01.2013 is sub judice before the learned District Judge / Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Saket Court, Delhi. In view thereof, it would not be appropriate for this court to dwell into the aspect of the notice dt. 25.07.2010.
18. It would be apt to take a note of the object behind the procedure of Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Whole object of incorporating this procedure is to grant a quick relief to litigants whenever the court finds any legally enforceable admission and that in such situations the court will help the litigations to get quick relief. (Prabitra Kumar Basu & Anr. vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation, 2000 AIHC 2101). In the case of Karam Kapahi & Ors. vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust & Anr. (2010) 4 SCC 753 it was held that the Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 9/18 object behind Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to give the plaintiff a speedy judgment. Further, in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. Vs. United Bank of India, AIR 2000 SC 2740, Apex Court made the following observations: 'We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this rule, as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also whereever there is a clear admission of fact in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed."
19. In this context, I shall also take note of certain observations made in a judgment of Delhi High Court reported as Ved Prakash vs. M/s Marudhar Services Limited (2000)V AD (DHC) 845:
3. ...................... It would be too pedantic an approach to maintain that an admission can only be considered to have been made where a particular party specifically agrees to the correctness of a statement made in pleadings by the opposite party. The admission must be drawn from the totality of the circumstances of the case; the Court is not powerless to review the entire defense presented in the written statement. It is only in those instances where, from other attendant facts the Court is of the view that despite the existence of admissions triable issue have arisen, that its discretion should be exercised.
(underlined for emphasis) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5. ........................... Even if a bald assertion had been made in this regard, the Court is not powerless to look into the surrounding circumstances to see whether this was only a plea calculated to protract and prolong the litigation.
Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 10/18 ............................ Furthermore, if the argument of the learned counsel for the Defendant is accepted, it would result in the anomalous position that whilst the pleadings of the defendant is substantiation of its plea of waiver are allowed to be sketchy and bereft of necessary and requisite detail, the plaintiff's explanatory pleadings containing the necessary details would have to be ignored. The failure of the Defendant to plead full particulars cannot be countenanced. It is palpably clear that the defendant has deliberately made vague pleadings in order to mislead the Court. (underlined for emphasis) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
7. .......................... Merely because a palpably false case has been set up, in the present circumstances relating to the waiver of the notice, it would not lead to the consequence that a judgment should not be passed. Failure to plead facts which constitute a valid defense, must be read as admissions made as contemplated by Rule VI of Order 12. To hold otherwise would be an emasculation of judicial powers to dispense complete justice. Justice delayed is justice denied. (underlined for emphasis)
20. A decision of Division Bench of Delhi High Court reported as Surjit Sachdev vs. Kazakhstan Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. 66(1997) DLT 54 can also be taken note of in this connection. It was observed that admissions need not be made expressly in the pleadings and even on constructive admissions, Court can proceed to pass a decree in plaintiff's favour. The decisions reported as National Textile Corporation Ltd. (supra) and Madan Lal Kaushik (supra) too are along similar lines.
21. Now I shall proceed to give my findings on the various ingredients of the ground of second default in matter relating to payment of monthly rental Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 11/18 under the Act.
22. Landlordtenant relationship - This is the very first aspect that is required to be dealt with. Respondent states that notwithstanding the adjudication dt. 26.09.2011 there does not exist relationship of landlordtenant between the petitioner and him as the former purchased the property from Sh. Shyam Sunder Goswami and stepped into his shoes without even disclosing to him that he purchased the same. This stand of the respondent is a frivolous one. In view of the judgment dt. 26.09.2011 penned by the Ld. Additional Rent Controller (South), Delhi there is absolutely no manner of doubt that petitioner and the respondent stand in relationship of landlord and tenant. The judgment dt. 26.09.2011 has not been challenged in any higher forum. It has thus attained its inevitable finality. In view thereof, respondent's stand in this regard has to be turned down. Not only this, the respondent in his written statement admits that he is in occupation of the premises as a tenant. In his written statement (para 14 of reply on merits), he adds that he is paying monthly rental of Rs. 1,000/ since year 2008 to the petitioner. Furthermore, the respondent, as per his own admission in his written statement, instituted proceedings under section 27 of the Act against the petitioner. That apart, respondent himself states that petitioner purchased the property from Sh. Shyam Sunder Goswami and stepped into his shoes. Therefore, in terms of section 109 of Transfer of Property Act, there can be no manner of doubt that it is the petitioner who stands in the position of landlord of the respondent.
23. First default - The next issue that is to be adverted to is the issue of first default in the matter of payment of monthly rental under the Act. This issue Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 12/18 is not at all in dispute. The judgment dt. 26.09.2011, whereby the respondent was held to be a first defaulter in the matter of payment of monthly rental, has not been challenged in any forum. It has attained its inevitable finality. What is therefore clear is that the respondent has already availed the benefit under section 14 (2) of the Act after having committed first default in the payment of monthly rental.
24. Receipt of notice demanding arrears of rent - Now comes the issue of receipt of notice demanding arrears of rent. The petitionerlandlord avers that he had issued a notice to the respondenttenant in vernacular Hindi, dispatched on 08.01.2013 by post, particularly by speed post, thereby calling upon the latter to pay unto the former the legally recoverable arrears of rent in respect of tenanted premises along with interest accrued thereon at the prescribed statutory rates. The respondent does not dispute receipt of the notice by him. He rather admits it and states that he did not reply to the same as it was no notice in the eyes of law. This is precisely what he has to say with respect to the notice dispatched on 08.01.2013:
"It is submitted that the said said letter was not replied as the month pertaining to the referred non payment were duly deposited in the court vide various challans which was duly reported by the Naib Nazir for which Hon'ble Court of Sh. Balwant Rai Bansal then ARC had order and compliance order was passed. And thereafter vide order dated 3.1.2013, the matter was consigned to record room after checking that the deposit have been made that the respondent entitled to statutory protection under 14 (2) DRC Act. Hence, the undated letter sent 8.1.2013 has no sanctity under the eyes of law hence denied."
Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 13/18
25. It is therefore crystal clear that the notice dispatched on 08.01.2013 by the petitioner was received by the respondent whereby the latter was called upon to pay unto the former the legally recoverable arrears of rent in respect of tenanted premises along with interest accrued thereon at the prescribed statutory rates.
26. The respondent, however, attacked the aforesaid notice on the ground that it was no notice in the eyes of law. I fail to see as to how the aforesaid notice is not a notice in the eyes of law. The law does not prescribe any particular format for the notice for demand of arrears of rent. The law does not anywhere mandate that a person desirous of getting such a notice issued must get the same done through a legal practitioner on his behalf. There is nothing in the statute that a notice issued strictly by a legal practitioner only will have legal sanctity. A person can very well pen down and send such a notice under his own signatures. That apart, the fact that the notice was in vernacular Hindi would not mean that it is no notice in the eyes of law. Judgments reported as Smt. Raj Rani (supra) and M/s H M Doyal & Sons & Ors. (supra) clearly lay down that it is not necessary for the landlord to state the total amount of legally recoverable arrears of rent due from the tenant in his notice. Furthermore, Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra) has laid down that notice of demand must be read in common sense point of view bearing in mind how it is understood by ordinary people. In view of these multiple reasons, I see that the respondent's stand that aforesaid notice was no notice in the eyes of law is absolutely a meritless one.
27. What, therefore, emerges beyond any shadow of doubt is that the petitioner's notice, dispatched on 08.01.2013, demanding from the respondent Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 14/18 legally recoverable arrears of rent along with interest accrued thereon at the prescribed statutory rates was served upon the latter.
28. Whether respondenttenant was in arrears of rent - There is absolutely no manner of doubt that consequent to the judgment dt. 26.09.2011, the order dt. 07.05.2010 passed under section 15 (1) of the Act had lapsed. This is because the order dt. 07.05.2011 was only an interim order. And the interim would not continue to survive even after the trial is over, judgment has been passed and the lis is over. An order passed under section 15 (1) of the Act is effective only till the final adjudication of the petition under clause (a) of proviso to section 14 (1) of the Act and not thereafter. An order under section 15 (1) of the Act does not require the tenant to deposit the monthly rent even after the trial is over and the matter has been adjudicated upon.
29. In the case at hand, the first petition had been decided in petitioner's favour by the judgment dt. 26.09.2011 whereby the respondent was declared to be first defaulter in payment of monthly rental and he was given the benefit of section 14 (2) of the Act. Therefore, when the petition was finally decided on 26.09.2011 in petitioner's favour, the order dt. 07.05.2010 ceased to have any effect. It is to be noted that in terms of the judgment dt. 26.09.2011 separate proceedings (M30/11) commenced to determine the limited question whether the respondent had deposited the rent under section 15 (1) of the Act till the adjudication of the eviction petition under clause (a) of proviso to section 14 (1) of the Act.
30. It was contended by Ld. counsel for the respondent that the order dt. 07.05.2010 had called upon the respondent to continue to deposit the rent without Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 15/18 any time limit and the respondent was thus justified in depositing the rent under section 15 (1) of the Act for the period even after 26.09.2011. This argument has no basis. The order dt. 07.05.2010 was not passed for all times to come. It did not enjoin the tenant to deposit the monthly rental under section 15 (1) of the Act in perpetuity. What is clear is that an order under section 15 (1) of the Act, being an interim order, is effective only till the time the trial is pending. After the trial was over on 26.09.2011 there was no order requiring the tenant to continue to pay or deposit rent under section 15 (1) of the Act. That apart, I find that this argument is a self defeating one. If the respondent is so convinced that the deposit made by him under section 15 (1) of the Act for the period after 26.09.2011 till 31.05.2012 was entirely justified under the law, then the moot question is why did he then discontinue to deposit the rent under section 15 (1) of the Act from 01.06.2012 onwards. If he was so convinced of this stand of his, he should have continued to deposit the rent under section 15 (1) of the Act even after 01.06.2012 and should not have taken recourse to section 27 of the Act for the period after 01.06.2012. In this context, the following observations in Puneet Bajaj (supra) are quite material:
"Since there was no order passed by the Court of ARC for deposit of rent, the court of ARC could not signed the treasury challan of the tenant for depositing money. In fact several challans are put before the learned ARC by his 'Ahlmad' in a routine manner because learned ARC passes various orders allowing deposit of rent and in consequence of those orders, the learned ARC is supposed to sign challans and amongst these challans, if the staff puts some such challans for which there is no order, the same are also signed by learned ARC. Signing of such challans by learned Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 16/18 ARC for which he has not passed orders for deposit, would be inconsequential. If any amount is deposited by a party against such challans that would be deceitful deposit, without notice to the learned ARC by way of slipping challans through staff before learned ARC. I consider that such a deposit can never be considered as a valid deposit."
31. It is absolutely clear from the pleadings and the material on record that the respondenttenant deposited the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ per month in the court under section 15 (1) of the Act even after pronouncement of the judgment dt. 26.09.2011. And as per his own admission, he continued to deposit so till 31.05.2012. This deposit under section 15 (1) of the Act after 26.09.2011 till 31.05.2012 was inconsequential, without authority of law and beyond the scope of order dt. 07.05.2010. As on the date when he received the notice, respondent was therefore in arrears of rent from the period after pronouncement of judgment dt. 26.09.2011 till 31.05.2012.
32. Furthermore, the tenant, when he received the notice, was also in arrears of the rent from 01.06.2012 till 31st December, 2012. It is to be noted that the respondent filed a petition on or about 27th March, 2013 under section 27 of the Act for deposit of rent for the period 01.06.2012 till 30.04.2013 at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ per month. In this petition he states that the petitioner Ghanshyam refused to accept the rent for the period 01.06.2012 till 30.04.2013 when it was tendered to him by cash / money orders according to the rules and regulations.
33. The respondent, when he received the notice, was also in arrears of interest of 15% from the date on which the payment of rent was due from him. He admittedly did not pay or deposit the arrears of the interest of 15% from the date on which the payment of rent was due from him.
Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 17/18
34. Nonpayment of arrears of rent within two months of receipt of notice - After receipt of the notice demanding arrears of rent, the tenant admittedly did not pay or deposit the entire legally recoverable arrears of rent for the period after passing of the judgment on 26.09.2011 till 31st December, 2012 together with interest of 15% per annum within two months of receipt of the notice. It bears repetition to state that the deposit made by him under section 15 (1) of the Act for the period after the judgment dt. 26.09.2011 is not in accordance with law and beyond the scope of the order under section 15 (1) of the Act.
35. CONCLUSION - This is a fit case for judgment on the basis of admission made by the respondenttenant in his pleadings or otherwise. Petitioner's application under under Order XII Rule 6 read with Order XV Rule I and section 151 CPC is allowed. The respondenttenant has committed second default in matter of payment of monthly rental. Accordingly, an eviction order is hereby passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of portion (one room, one kitchen, common user of store room with open verandah in front, common bathroom and adjoining watered closet) on ground floor of property bearing no. 20/10, Gali no. 4, Amrit PuriB, Garhi Jharia Maria, near East of Kailash, Delhi, as shown in the site plan bounded by red colour (site plan exhibited today as Ex. PX). File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 29.11.2013 (M. P. Singh)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(SE)
Saket Court, New Delhi
Ghanshyam Singh vs. Dhan Prakash Page 18/18