Back
High Court Of Delhi
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
ANSHU GOYAL - Appellant
Versus
S.H.VIJENDER KUMAR ROHTAGI - Respondents
CM (M) 1618 Of 2005
Decided On : 12/12/2006
Rent Control Act - Tenant - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 27, Section 14(1)(a), Section 14(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, particularly focusing on the tenant's duty to pay rent, the landlord's right to demand rent, and the validity of rent demands. The court also considered the implications of the landlord's failure to provide proof of ownership and the legality of demanding past arrears of rent.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a tenant, claimed that after the landlord's passing, no legal heirs demanded rent, and the respondent could not locate the entitled party. The petitioner, the new landlord, demanded rent without providing proof of ownership. The petitioner also demanded past arrears of rent, which the respondent disputed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent could not be faulted for not paying rent as the legal heirs did not demand it, and the petitioner failed to provide proof of ownership. The court also noted that the demand for past arrears of rent was not substantiated.
Issues: The issues revolved around the tenant's duty to pay rent, the landlord's right to demand rent, and the validity of rent demands, as well as the implications of the landlord's failure to provide proof of ownership and the legality of demanding past arrears of rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tenant cannot be faulted for non-payment of rent if the legal heirs did not demand it, and the landlord failed to provide proof of ownership. The court also emphasized that demanding past arrears of rent without substantiation is not valid.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
( 1 ) ADMIT.
( 2 ) AT request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
( 3 ) THE respondent is the tenant in respect of two shops in property bearing no. F-2/1 Krishan Nagar, Delhi-51 at a monthly rent of Rs 234/- excluding other charges. The landlady of the premises was one Smt. Champa Nagpal and it is stated that the rent used to be collected by her husband Sh. M. L. Nagpal. Smt. Champa Nagpal and M. L. Nagpal both passed away. The rent was paid till May, 2000.
( 4 ) IT is the case of the respondent/tenant that thereafter the rent was never demanded by any of the legal heirs of the Nagpals nor could the respondent locate as to who would be entitled to the rent. Thus the respondent was not in a position even to deposit the rent under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control act, 1958.
( 5 ) THE petitioner apparently purchased the property vide a sale deed dated 26. 06. 2002. The petitioner served a notice on the respondent dated 20. 11. 2002 expw1/d in the following terms "under instructions from and on behalf of my clientess Smt. Anshu Goyal w/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Goyal r/o E-6/11, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-51, I hereby sere you with the following legal notice:-1. That my clientess is the owner and landlady of the property bearing no. F-2/1 krishan Nagar, Delhi-51 and you are a tenant in respect of two shops Pvt No. 11 and 12 in the said property at a monthly rent of Rs 234/- per month excluding of all other charges. 2. That the price index has been changed and increased very high and the value of rupees is down continuously and due to the change in the price index and also as per the Order of the Hon'ble Judges Sh. Anil Dev Singh and Mr. O. P. Dwivedi in the Writ Petition No. 2783 of 1997 decided on 18. 01. 2002 has declared the Section 4,6 and 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as ultra vires the Constitution and held that the landlord can increase the rent as per price index in the market. 3. That the rate of rent is liable to be held equal to the price index of the market rate and as such Rs 3,000/- per month is a reasonable rent as per the present market value of the tenanted property of each shop. 4. You are very irregular in paying the rent to my clientes as despite the repeated request and demands you have failed to pay the rent w. e. f 01. 06. 2000. It is not out of place to mention here that my clientess had purchased the property in June, 2002 but the previous owners had authorized her to receive the all the previous rent balance upon you. 5. That the rented shops under your tenancy are in dangerous conditions and my clientess wrote a letter to the MCD of the facts and on this ground also you are liable to be vacated the tenanted premises and if you failed to vacate the tenanted premises and any mis happening caused to you then my clientess will not be responsible for the same. I, therefore, hereby call upon you to pay whole of the arrears of rent w. e. f. 01. 06. 2000 to 31. 09. 2002 @ Rs 234/- per month within two months of this legal notice and increase the rent by Rs 3,000/- pm w. e. f. 1. 10. 2002 excluding all other charges of each shop and also vacate the tenanted shops as they are in dangerous conditions. Be notified that in the event of your failure to carry out the above said requisitions my clientesss hall be constrained to take appropriate legal action against you holding you responsible for all the costs and consequences arising therefrom.
( 6 ) THE notice was replied to by the respondent in terms of a reply dated 03. 01. 2003 Expw1/g. In the reply, the respondent has stated that after sh. M. L. Nagpal expired on January, 2002, the owners/landlords of the property could not be located. It is also stated that the rent is Rs 234/- per month and had been paid up to May, 2000. The respondent also demanded the document of ownership of the petitioner.
( 7 ) THE petitioner filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the said act on the gro
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
