Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3652
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JAYANT NATH, J.
DHANANDER KUMAR JAIN - Petitioner
Versus
M.C.D. - Respondent
CM(M) 569 of 2001
Decided On : 11-10-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.K. Rawal, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal & Mr. Alok Pandey, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. B.K. Sood & Mr. Shivam Rawat, Advocate.
The judgment emphasizes that arrears which fall due for the period subsequent to the service of the notice of demand cannot be taken into account for the purpose of computing alleged default of the tenant.
Headnote:
Default in Payment of Rent - Delhi Rent Control Act - Section 14(1)(a), Section 14(2), Section 15(1), Section 15(7)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an eviction petition against the respondent for default in payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Rent Control Tribunal set aside the eviction order, finding no default in payment of rent by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice of default sent by the petitioner was erroneous as there was no default in payment of rent by the respondent. The court also dismissed the plea of non-maintainability of the petition and upheld the order of the Rent Control Tribunal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged default in payment of rent, maintainability of the petition, and the absence of permission under the Slum (Improvement and Clearance) Act for the eviction petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the alleged default in payment of rent was not valid as there was no default by the respondent. The court also dismissed the plea of non-maintainability of the petition and did not address the absence of permission under the Slum (Improvement and Clearance) Act due to upholding the Rent Control Tribunal's order.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the trial court record was to be sent back.
JAYANT NATH, J.
1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to impugn the order of the Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the RCT) dated 09.08.2001 dismissing the petition of the petitioner/landlord for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under Section 14(1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act).
2. Some of the relevant facts are that the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) is a tenant under the petitioner in the premises bearing No. 1747-48 located at Gali Satyawati, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The respondent was a tenant before the purchase of the property by the petitioner in 1950 at a rent of Rs.217.25/- per month. The first, second and third floors of the said property are with the respondent. It is further averred by the petitioner that in 1978, he was granted permission to institute eviction proceedings by the Competent Authority under the Slum (Improvement and Clearance) Act. The petitioner is said to have filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act in 1981. Vide order dated 21.11.1986, the ARC granted benefit of Section 14(2) of the DRC Act to the respondent. As there is said to have been a default again in payment of rent, the petitioner issued a notice on 04.01.1988 and again filed another eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act. It is the case of the petitioner that as the respondent again committed default in payment of rent vide order dated 13.03.1989 passed under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act, the respondent was directed to pay rent w.e.f. December, 1987 and to continue to do so in future.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent despite the above order passed by the ARC under section 15(1) of the DRC Act dated 13.3.1989 failed to comply with the directions. The petitioner hence filed an application under section 15(7) of the DRC Act praying for appropriate orders. By order dated 17.11.1999 the ARC made the order dated 13.3.1989 passed under section 15(1) of the DRC Act as absolute.
4. On 11.05.2000, an eviction order was passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. The respondent filed an appeal before the RCT. The RCT by the impugned order dated 09.08.2001 set aside the eviction order holding it to be untenable and erroneous as there has been no default in payment of rent by the respondent for the period which warranted filing of the eviction petition.
5. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the order notes that the judicial conscious is shocked by the manner in which based on fabricated documents the petitioner managed to get an eviction order passed in co-operation with the employees of the respondent. The order notes that the premises is being used by the Municipal Corporation for running a primary school meant for poor strata of the society. It also notes that as per the eviction petition, it was claimed that MCD had neither paid nor tendered rent w.e.f. December 1987 despite notice dated 04.01.1988 sent by the petitioner to the respondent under registered cover. The RCT noted that MCD had presented cheque No. 293765 for Rs. 434.50/- (Ex.AW1/5) being the rent for December 1987 and January 1988 but the same was dishonoured by the bankers being post dated. The rent for 01.02.1988 to 31.03.1988 was sent vide cheque No. 304223 dated 29.01.1988. The RCT also noted that the cheque i.e. Ex.AW1/5 which was for the rent of December 1987 and January 1988 is originally dated 20.11.1987 but has been fabricated to read as dated 20.11.1989 i.e. to make it a post dated cheque. Hence, it was dishonoured by the bankers on presentation. The RCT held that for payment of rent for the period of December 1987 and January 1988, a cheque with the date 20.11.1987 would be drawn and not for date 20.11.1989. As the petitioner had kept the cheque with him, the RCT held that he cannot subsequently claim that the respondent
