USHA MEHRA
ASA SINGH VIRDI – Appellant
Versus
ASIT KUMAR SARKAR – Respondent
( 1 ) ACTUAL date notice was issued which was duly served on the respondents as per office report. But inspite of service no one put in appearance in the week commencing 6th March, 1995. Earlier also notice was served but none appeared. It is in this background that I do not consider it necessary to serve the respondent afresh.
( 2 ) THE short point involved in this petition is, whether fresh revised agreed rent or the initial fixed rent would be the determining factor to calculate arrears of rent? The Additional Rent Control (in short the ARC) relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Allied Engineers Vs. Smt. Harbaksh Gill 1985 Rajdhani Law Reporter 128 held that initial rent would prevail because the mutually agreed rent fixed by the parties thereby refixing the rate of rent at Rs. 950. 00 w. e. f. 1st September, 1990 was a periodical increase. Since it was a periodical increase in rent due to the agreement arrived at between the parties hence the petitioner would not be entitled to an order under Section 15 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act ).
( 3 ) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that the respondent was inducted as a tenant on
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.