The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for tenants to comply with the payment or deposit requirements under the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the limited scope for condonation of delay in such compliance.

Jayant Nath, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to impugn the judgment passed by the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as The ARC) dated 20.10.2012, the order passed by the SCJ-cum-RC dated 3.9.2013 and the order passed by The Rent Controller in the appeal dated 2.2.2016 by which an eviction order has been passed against the petitioner under section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as The DRC Act).

2. The respondent (landlord) filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under section 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The impugned order has been passed under section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act. It was averred in the petition that the respondent is the owner of shop bearing No.1 in the property bearing No. IX/6662, Nehru Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031. The respondent purchased the property on 3.9.2004 through registered sale deed. It is urged that the last payment of rent was made by the petitioner on 18.9.2007 for the period 1.4.2005 till 31.3.2006 @ Rs.250/- per month. The tenant/petitioner is said to have stopped paying rent including payment of government taxes like house tax since 1.4.2006. A legal notice was sent on 26.6.2008 to the petitioner. On 14.7.2008 the petitioner sent a reply denying that the respondent is the owner of the tenanted property but admitted about the arrears. Hence, the petition was filed seeking eviction of the petitioner.

3. On 7.11.2009 the ARC noted that the relationship of landlord tenant, rate of rent and the period of arrears are admitted facts. Hence, it directed the petitioner under section 15(1) of the DRC Act to pay the rent dues @ Rs.250/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.2006 till date by depositing the calculated amount directly in the bank account of the respondent, particulars of which were to be furnished by the respondent. It was also directed that monthly rent of Rs.250/- per month shall be paid by the 15th of each succeeding month by depositing the same in the bank.

4. On 20.10.2012 the ARC recorded the examination in chief of the petitioner, Shri Satish Bansal, where he has admitted the relationship of landlord tenant between the parties, the rate of rent of Rs.250 per month and that he is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.2006. Holding that there is nothing on record to show that there is any default earlier on the part of the petitioner, the ARC granted benefit to the petitioner under section 14(2) of the Act. It held that in case the petitioner has complied with the order under section 15(1) of the DRC Act passed on 7.11.2009, there shall be no eviction of the petitioner.

5. On 3.9.2013 on an application being filed by the respondent under section 14(2) of the DRC Act the ARC noted that as per the records, pursuant to the order dated 7.11.2009 the respondent had furnished particulars of the bank account on 7.1.2010. The petitioner thereafter deposited rent of Rs.11,250/- on 20.1.2010, Rs.6,000/- on 30.8.2011 and Rs.3,000/- on 24.4.2012. It was clear that the deposit of rent by the petitioner was not in compliance of the orders passed by the court on 07.11.2009. The ARC also noted that the petitioner has moved an application seeking condonation of delay in depositing the rent with the plea that the rent could not be deposited due to communication gap between the petitioner and the office of the counsel. The ARC did not accept the plea holding that the petitioner cannot take shelter behind the office of the counsel and claim that he was not apprised by the counsel to deposit the rent on a monthly basis and as such dismissed the application of the petitioner and passed an eviction order on 3.9.2013.

6. An appeal was filed by the petitioner under section 38 of the DRC Act. The Rent Controller noting the legal position held that the petitioner has failed to comply with the directions passed by the ARC under section 15(1) of the DRC Act vide order dated 7.11.2009. The Re