1. By this petition, the petitioners have assailed an order dated 15th October, 2007 passed by learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby on appeal the order of eviction passed by Additional Rent Controller was reversed.

2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioners-landlord filed an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 14 (i) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act. This eviction petition was upheld, however, the tenant was given benefit of Section 14 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act and the eviction order was not passed. The landlord again filed an eviction petition on the ground of second default because of not making payment of rent by tenant consequently for three months despite a notice of demand dated 6th June, 2001. It is not disputed that in response to the notice of demand sent by landlord, the tenant sent a reply stating that he was including a draft of Rs.1,200/- towards the arrears of rent. He also gave particulars of the draft in the reply. However, landlord did not find pay order annexed with reply and vide a counter reply informed the tenant that reply was not accompanied with the alleged pay order. The tenant sent a reply to the counter reply and insisted that he had sent the pay order and he also asked the landlord to send his bank account number so that future controversy can be averted. The landlord filed the eviction petition.

3. The learned ARC recorded evidence on this issue and it was proved that a pay order of Rs.1,200/- was got prepared by the tenant in the name of landlord. However, learned ARC found that this was not sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 14 (2) and observed as under :- “He only took the plea that he sent the pay order dated 02.08.2001 amounting to Rs.1200/- which is proved that said pay order was not encashed by any one. The factum of not receiving the pay order was already communicated to the respondent through rejoinder Exbt. PW-1/3, which clearly goes to show that the rent was neither tendered nor paid within two months of the service of legal notice and this fact is duly admitted by the respondent in his cross examination. The respondent also failed to place on record that after he came to know that the pay order was not encashed by the petitioner. He has never taken steps to deposit the rent in the court as provided under Section 26 and 27 of DRC Act. In view of the evidence adducted by both the parties and also after taking into considerations, observations made by their Lordships in the aforesaid decided cases, I am of the considered view that the petitioners succeeded in proving their case for seeking eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent and also on the ground of second default committed by the respondent.”

4. Learned ARC found that since benefit of Section 14 (2) had already been granted, this was a case of second default and the tenant was not entitled for any further protection and passed an eviction order on 12th April, 2007. The learned ARCT before whom the appeal was preferred by the tenant observed as under :-

“Once the draft was purchased in the name of the respondent he became owner of the draft and therefore, if the draft was not received or was misplaced he should have applied for duplicate draft to the concerned bank and could have encashed the same. At the most, he might have asked the appellant to pay the charges for issuance of the duplicate bank draft. This has not been done. The respondent has also not cared to inform the appellant about his bank account which would have facilitated the appellant to make the payment of the rent despite having paid the money to the bank who issued the pay order of these aspects have not been taken into consideration by the trial court.”

5. The only issue which arises for consideration by this court is whether the view taken by the learned ARCT was in consonance with established law and should this