Point of Law: Rent - Protection of tenant against eviction - RCT was right in coming to conclusion that affidavits and photographs had not been proved in accordance with law - No error or perversity in orders of learned RCT.

JUDGMENT :

ASHA MENON, J.

1. Since these two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed challenging the same judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge/Rent Control Tribunal (“RCT”) dated 10th November, 2020, the petitions are being disposed of vide this common order.

2. The litigation between the parties seems to have had a chequered history. Two eviction petitions, being, No. E-1/86 and E-16/99 had been filed on 24th December, 1985 and 19th May, 1988 respectively by Shri Swami Goverdhan Rangachari Ji Maharaj, Managing Trustee, and other trustees on behalf of Shri Thakur Rangji Maharaj Trust (“the Trust”) which manages the Rangji Temple, Vrindavan, District Mathura, U.P against M/s. A.J. Printers, under Section 14(1)(j) and (k) and Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”) as amended from time to time respectively. We are concerned here only with the eviction petition filed under Section 14(1) (j) and (k).

3. For the sake of convenience, since two petitions are being disposed of by this common order, the Trustees, being the petitioners in the original eviction petitions shall be referred to as “petitioners” herein and M/S A.J. Printers, the respondents in the original eviction petition shall be referred to as “respondents” in this order.

4. The case set up by the petitioners was that three rooms, drawing-cum-dining, Pantry, kitchen, two servant quarters and one garage on the ground floor of Bunglow No. 97, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi had been let out to the respondents in terms of a written Lease Deed dated 1st October, 1972 for residential purposes at the monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/- excluding electricity, water and other charges. The petitioners alleged that the respondents had unauthorisedly covered the open inner courtyard by glass and a room had been unauthorisedly constructed in the rear portion of the premises, apart from Duchhatti over the corridor. It was also alleged that the respondents had changed the main gate of the premises which was facing south and unauthorizedly constructed another main gate, facing west. This resulted in substantial damage to the premises. Further, the Land and Development Office (“L&DO”) which was the superior lessor, served a notice on the petitioners alleging breach of the terms of the Perpetual Lease granted to the petitioners on account of such unauthorized constructions and also threatened to forfeit the lease and reenter the premises.

5. The respondents had contested the allegations and denied that they had made any unauthorized construction in the premises. It was submitted that originally, the inner courtyard was covered with Asbestos Sheets, which had decayed during the course of several years and were replaced by glass panes. It was denied that any additional room had been unauthorisedly constructed and it was claimed that this room had been in existence at the time when the premises were let out. It was claimed that minor deviations could be regularized by the L&DO on payment of nominal compounding charges and there was no occasion for the constructions being described as a breach of the terms and conditions of the lease. It was denied that the L&DO had threatened re-entry.

6. Vide judgment dated 16th July, 2003, the learned Rent Controller (“RC”) held that the tenanted premises had remained in the same nature and condition as it was when it was originally let out and the respondents could not be attributed with any action resulting in a breach of the terms and conditions of the Perpetual Lease Deed between the Petitioners’ Trust and the L&DO. Thus, the petition under Section 14(1)(j) and (k) was dismissed. Vide the same judgment, the eviction petition under Section 22 of the DRC Act was also dismissed.

7. An appeal being RCA No. 29/09/03 was filed by the petitioners on 19th August, 2003 against this judgment before the learned District Judge/Rent Control Tribunal. During the pendency of this appeal, in another petition filed