Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Del) 2071

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Permanand Vijay Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Savitri Devi & Ors. - Respondents
CM(M) 15/2021 & CMs 584/2021, 586/2021
Decided On : 04-03-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv, Mr.Sandeep Vishnu, Adv, for the Appellant; Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv, Mr.P.K.Rawal, Adv, for the Respondent

The failure of the tenant to deposit the rent under Section 27 of the Act, after the landlord's refusal to accept the tendered rent, makes the tenant liable for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Headnote:
Rent Control Tribunal - Eviction - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(a) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XII Rule 6 - Section 14(1)(a) of the Act
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a tenant, filed a petition challenging the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, which affirmed the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, allowing the eviction petition of the respondent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The dispute arose from the non-payment of rent and the subsequent eviction petition filed by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's claim of tendering the rent by cheques was disputed by the respondents, and the Rent Controller disbelieved the petitioner's stand. The court held that the petitioner's failure to deposit the rent under Section 27 of the Act, despite the refusal of the landlord to accept the tendered rent, made it liable for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The court set aside the previous orders and directed the Trial Court to decide the eviction petition on its merits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's failure to deposit the rent under Section 27 of the Act, after the landlord's refusal to accept the tendered rent, made it liable for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. Additionally, the court considered the disputed facts regarding the tender of rent by the petitioner and the interpretation of the legal provisions under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tenant's failure to deposit the rent under Section 27 of the Act, after the landlord's refusal to accept the tendered rent, made it liable for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The court also emphasized the distinction between the main provision of Section 14(1)(a) and the provisions in relation to eviction proceedings as contained in Sections 14(2) and 15(1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the previous orders, and directed the Trial Court to decide the eviction petition on its merits. The court also dismissed the application filed by the respondents under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and revived the application filed under Section 15(7) of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral). - This hearing has been held by video conferencing.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal (Central) in Appeal, being RCT No.85/2019, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner herein in challenge to the order dated 04.05.2019 of the learned Rent Controller and affirming the order passed by the learned Rent Controller under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), allowing the eviction petition of the respondent, being E-No.80318/2016 titled Kunj Bihari Lal Kapoor vs. M/s Permanand Vijay Kumar, under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

3. To appreciate the dispute between the parties, it would be necessary to take note of certain facts.

4. The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent with respect to two shops and one go down on the backside of the ground floor of the property bearing No.488, Bartan Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as subject premises').

5. The respondents, alleging that the rate of rent with respect to the subject premises was Rs. 1,020/- per month which had neither been paid nor tendered by the petitioner herein with effect from 01.08.2005, issued a legal notice dated 19.11.2005 demanding the said rent from the petitioner.

6. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner sent a reply dated 26.11.2005 to the above legal notice inter alia claiming that the rent of the property, in fact, had been increased to Rs.2,040/-per month with effect from 01.01.2005. The petitioner further stated in the reply that the rent is being paid quarterly and the receipts have also been issued on a quarterly basis. It was stated in the reply that the rent up to 31.08.2005 already stands paid and the rent for the months of September, October and November, 2005 was liable to be paid on 30.11.2005.

7. The petitioner claims to have enclosed with the reply to the legal notice, a cheque for three month's rent amounting to Rs.6,120/-and another cheque for Rs.2,040/- being rent for December, 2005. I may note herein itself that the respondent denies receipt of these cheques.

8. The petitioner obtained the permission under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 to file the eviction petition and thereafter filed the eviction petition in question sometime in November, 2009. Inter-alia following averments were made by the respondent in its eviction petition:

"11.	Monthly rent together with details of house-tax, electricity, water and other charges paid by the tenant.	Rs.2040/- exclusive of electricity charges.
xxx xxx
19.	(b) Whether notice required has been given and if so, particulars thereof (copies of such notice and tenant's reply if any, should be furnished).	Notice dated 19.11.2005
		was sent to the
		respondent, which was
		duly served upon the
		respondent.

"2.....The tenancy is according to English Calendar month commencing from 1st day of each English Calendar month, commencing from 1st day of each English Month and ending on the last day of the same English Calendar month. The tenant/respondent has neither paid nor tendered the entire arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.8.2005 inspite of repeated requests and demands and also inspite of service of the legal notice of demand dt. 19.11.2005 which notice was duly served upon the respondent and after the receipt of the said legal demand notice, a false and frivolous reply was sent by the respondent. Even after the receipt of the demand notice dt 19.1 2005 or otherwise, the respondent neither paid nor tendered the entire arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.8.2005 at the rate of Rs.2040/- per month. Hence, the petition is on ground of non-payment of rent.

xxxxxx

"5. That it