Premature filing of an eviction petition does not cause prejudice to the tenant if the tenant had exercised the option to pay the arrears of rent within the stipulated time. The first default in compliance with rent payment orders may grant the tenant protection under Section 14(2) of the DRC Act.

JUDGMENT

1. These two petitions have been filed by the legal representatives (L.Rs.) of the original tenant against whom the respondent herein, Smt. Shanti Devi had filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Delhi Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act). Since the parties are the same and since the impugned orders arise out of the same proceedings, both petitions are being disposed of vide this common order.

2. CM (M) 537/2020 has been filed against the order dated 17th October, 2020 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge/Rent Control Tribunal (RCT), Shahdara Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, dismissing the appeal preferred by the present petitioners against the orders of the learned SCJ-cum- RC dated 23rd January, 2017. CM (M) 541/2020 has been filed by the petitioners against the order of the RCT dated 17th October, 2020, upholding the judgment of the learned SCJcum- RC dated 21st July, 2018 (also mentioned as 16th July, 2018).

3. As already noticed, an eviction petition had been filed by the respondent/landlady under Section 14 (1)(a) of the DRC Act in respect of one shop situated on the ground floor ad-measuring 6ft x 8ft in property bearing No. 9/6829, Janta Gali, Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi-110031, on the ground that the petitioners had defaulted in paying the rent, despite service of demand notice dated 11th April, 2016. The learned Rent Controller (RC) vide the judgment dated 23rd January, 2017 concluded that the tenant (now deceased) was in default in the payment of rent and that the respondent/landlady had established her entitlement to seek eviction of the petitioners under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act. But another chance was granted under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act to the tenant, directing him to, within one month from the date of the order, pay the arrears of rent @ Rs. 180/- per month with effect from 1st April, 2016 till 30th April, 2016 and @ 198/- per month with effect from 1st May, 2016 till date, along with interest @15% per annum, as per Section 26 of DRC Act, adjusting whatever rent that had already been deposited.

4. The learned Rent Controller fixed the case for verifying compliance and called for Nazir’s report and on the basis of the Nazir’s report concluded vide the impugned judgment dated 21st July, 2018 that the petitioners had not complied with the orders under Section 15(1) and thus were not entitled to the protection under Section 14(2) of the DRC Act and accordingly directed eviction of the petitioners from the suit property.

5. Both the judgments i.e., dated 23rd January, 2017 and 21st July, 2018 were challenged by way of appeals under Section 38 of the DRC Act before the learned RCT (being RCT No.25/18 & RCT No. 30/18), which were dismissed vide the order dated 17th October, 2020. Hence the present petitions.

6. The foremost arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mohit Gupta, is that the eviction petition itself was not maintainable inasmuch as the notice of demand was dated 11th April, 2016 and the petition was filed on 24th May, 2016, even prior to the two months’ time allowed to the petitioners to make compliance, had elapsed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Anand Prakash v. Gain Chand Swara, 1992 SCC OnLine Del 396.

7. It has also been argued that the learned RC had wrongly concluded that there was default, holding that the tenant had failed to deposit the arrears of rent under Section 27 of the DRC Act. Learned counsel argued that two cheques had been sent along with the tenant’s reply 26th April, 2016 to the demand notice sent by the landlady, which was overlooked by the learned RC. Thus, since tender of rent through cheques was valid tender and further since the cheques were valid for a period of three months, it was not possible for the tenant to deposit the rent under Section 27 of the DRC Act. Therefore, the learned RC wrongly applied the judgment of Sarla Goel vs. Kishan Chand (2009) 7 SCC 658 as in that case money orders were refuse