Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 824

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Seema Rao & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Mrs. Rekha Maini & Ors. – Respondents
CM(M) 250 of 2023 & CM APPL. 7648 of 2023
Decided On : 16-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sachin Jain and Mr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Seth, Mr. Navjot Kwatra and Mr. Vipin Malik, Advocates, for the Respondent.

The legal point established is that the legal heir of a landlord can step into the shoes of the landlord and maintain an eviction petition. Additionally, non-payment of rent, including interest on arrears of rent, constitutes a violation of the Delhi Rent Control Act, leading to potential eviction.

Headnote:
Rent Control Act - Landlord-Tenant Dispute - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 38 - Section 14 (1) (a) - Section 14 (1) (e) - Section 14 (2) - Section 15 (1) - Interest on Arrears of Rent
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenges the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The dispute revolves around the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and the arrears of rent owed by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent, as the legal heir of the original landlord, had stepped into the shoes of the landlord and could maintain the eviction petition. The court also held that the petitioner's non-payment of rent on time, including interest on arrears of rent, constituted a violation of Section 15 (1) (a) of the Act, leading to the upheld eviction.
Issues: The key issues were the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the petitioner's arrears of rent, including the demand for interest as part of the arrears.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the finding that the respondent had validly stepped into the role of the landlord and could maintain the eviction petition. Additionally, the court relied on the legal principle that non-payment of rent, including interest on arrears of rent, constituted a violation of the Act, leading to the upheld eviction.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the eviction as directed by the Rent Control Tribunal was upheld.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. Petitioner challenges the impugned judgment and order dated 20.10.2022 passed in RCT No. 01/20 titled as "Rekha Maini & Ors. vs. Ms. Seema Rao etc.", whereby the appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been allowed overturning the judgment rendered by the learned ARC vide the impugned order 24.02.2020 dismissing the eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act, 1958 filed by the respondent.

2. The facts noted by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 24.02.2020 are extracted hereinbelow:

2.1. It is averred in the petition that the husband of the respondent no. 1 Late Sh. Ramesh Kumar Maini in the year 2001 had let out the premises in question to the petitioners. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Maini left for his heavenly abode on 22.03.2007 leaving behind his legal heirs i.e. respondent no. 1 to 4. Respondent no. 5 and Sh. Ramesh Kumar Maini being real brothers had jointly purchased the premises in question in the year 2000.

2.2. It is further averred that after the death of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Maini, respondents were not having the document i.e. rent agreement executed in regard to the premises in question and as the rentals were being paid by the petitioner no. 2 to Ramesh Kumar Maini during his lifetime, the respondent no. 5 served a legal notice dated 31.03.2018 upon petitioner no. 2 terminating his tenancy on the ground that the petitioner no. 2 was a defaulter in making payment of rent and was under the arrears of rent w.e.f April, 2005 at the monthly rent of Rs. 3400/- per month. An eviction petition bearing no. E-258/2008 was filed U/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act against the petitioner no. 2, wherein the petitioner no. 2 in his written statement alleged that the tenancy in respect of premises in question was created in favour of his wife i.e. petitioner no. 1 herein. The petitioner no. 2 also alleged that Sh. Ramesh Kumar Maini as the landlord/owner of the property and further alleged that the monthly rentals of the premises in question as Rs. 2200/- per month. The said eviction petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition vide order dated 31.10.2011 of the Ld. Court.

2.3. It is further averred by the respondent that respondent no. 1 to 4 being the legal heirs of Late Sh. Ramesh Kumar Maini and respondent no. 5 served a legal notice dated 02.01.2011 upon the petitioners, vide registered post and speed post, terminating their tenancy as the petitioners being habitual defaulters had not cleared the arrears of rent of the premises in question w.e.f. 01.04.2005 at the contractual rate of Rs. 3400/- per month.

2.4. It is also averred that the respondents have also filed another eviction petition U/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act against the petitioners, which is pending before the Ld. ARC, Karkardooma Courts. It is further averred that till date, despite the service of the legal notice, the petitioners have not paid the arrears of rent.

2.5. It is also averred that the rent agreement, which was not traceable at the time of filing of eviction petition bearing no. E- 181/2011 filed U/s 14 (1) (e) DRC Act, came across the respondent no. 1 at the time whitewash was going on just prior to Deepawali in the month of October, 2013. It is further averred that the said document clearly reflects that the rate of rent was settled at Rs. 3300/- per month in the year 2011. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of non- payment of rent.

2.6. Petitioners filed a reply wherein they disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant. It was submitted that the suit premises was let out by Sh. Ramesh Kumar Maini (husband of the respondent) to the petitioners in the year 2001 at a monthly rate of Rs. 1800/- which was increased from time to time and the present agreed rent was Rs. 2800/- per month. It was further averred that