Non-compliance with court orders and failure to pay rent can lead to eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT

Asha Menon, J. - CM APPL.20655/2021 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL.20654/2021 (Exemption from filing attested affidavits)

1. The application is allowed subject to the petitioner filing duly affirmed affidavit(s) alongwith the court fees/deficit court fees, if any, within 72 hours from the date of resumption of the regular functioning of this court.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM (M) 434/2021, CM APPLs.20653/2021 (by the petitioners u/S 151 CPC for stay)

1. The legal representatives of the tenant have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the findings of the learned District & Session Judge/Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) dated 17th February, 2021 and the order of eviction dated 17th November, 2015 passed by ACJ-CUM-CJ-CUM-ARC, North District, Rohini Courts.

2. The facts as are relevant to the disposal of the present petition are that the respondents/landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) seeking the eviction of the original tenant Shri K.L. Gupta, (referred to as 'tenant' for convenience) predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, from the tenanted premises which was a residential flat comprising of three rooms, kitchen and toilet (partition into latrine and bath) on the ground floor, forming part of House No. K-5/2, Model Town-III, Delhi 110009 (Tenanted Premises). The original landlord was Mr. Moti Dass, who expired on 18th April, 2006 bequeathing the property to his four sons, who are the respondents herein.

3. The eviction petition was filed alleging that the tenants had paid the rent only up to 31st October, 2011 at the last agreed rate of rent of Rs.2,574/- per month, exclusive of electricity and water charges and arrears of rent for 23 months w.e.f. 1st January, 2011 to 30th September, 2013 at the settled rate amounting to Rs.59,202/- and interest @ 15% thereon, amounting to Rs.8,140/-, had accumulated. Legal notice of demand including enhancement dated 16th October, 2013 was served on the tenants despite which neither was any reply sent nor the arrears paid/tendered.

4. The learned Additional Rent Controller ('ARC') vide the judgment dated 17th November, 2015 noticed that the tenant was proceeded ex parte and thus since the case of the landlord remained uncontroverted and unchallenged, the petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act was allowed. It was also noted that though an order dated 11th February, 2015 had been passed under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act, directing the tenant to pay the arrears and future rent, the said order was not complied with. Thus, no benefit could be accorded to the tenant under Section 14(2) of the DRC Act. It thus passed an eviction order in favour of the landlord and against the tenant.

5. This order was taken in appeal by the tenant, numbered as RCT No. 16/2016. This was dismissed vide the impugned order placed at Annexure P-1 dated 17th February, 2021, the learned RCT/District Judge, finding no reason to interfere with the judgement of the learned ARC dated 17th November, 2015.

6. Mr. Aslam Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the tenant was a senior citizen and was completely dependent on the aid and advice of his counsel. It is submitted that the tenant could not attend the hearings personally and remained unaware of the directions issued by the court for the deposit of the rent. The counsel on whom Shri K.L. Gupta depended, also absented himself from the hearings and as a result he was proceeded ex parte. Once again, he remained totally unaware of this development. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of Shri K.L. Gupta being his wife, daughter-in-law and granddaughters, on humanitarian grounds, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside.

7. The question was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as to whethe