Non-payment of rent and lack of substantiation of defense claims do not warrant protection under eviction laws, emphasizing the importance of statutory notice compliance.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(a) and Section 14(2) - Eviction proceedings - Dismissal of appeals challenging eviction from tenanted premises due to non-payment of rent since June 2005, despite statutory notice served - Courts found petitioner's claims of disputes over rent amount and non-service of notice unsubstantiated. (Paras 2-16)

(B) Jurisdiction - Court clarified that it does not act as an appellate court reviewing evidence but assesses jurisdictional and substantial errors made by lower courts. (Paras 10-11)

(C) Service of Notice - Courts upheld that notice was properly served as per statutory requirements, and presumption of service was correctly applied. (Paras 13)

(D) Medical Grounds - Denial of protection under Section 14(2), as medical claims were not sufficiently substantiated, thus failing to justify delays in payment of rent. (Paras 14-15)

Findings of Court:
The petitions challenging the eviction were found to lack merit, and the courts upheld the eviction orders based on non-compliance with rent payment obligations.

Issues: The primary issues involved determination of rent amount, service of statutory notice, and whether medical grounds justified non-payment of rent.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the limitation of its review powers, maintaining that factual issues and evidence were correctly evaluated by the lower courts, particularly regarding the statutory requirements for service.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. eviction petition and proceedings details (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. petitioner's arguments on rent payment and service notice (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. court's rejection of petitioner's claims and clarification on notice (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. discretion in condoning rent payment delays (Para 15)
5. conclusion on dismissal of petitions (Para 16)

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--These petitions have been filed challenging the common judgment/order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the `RCT') in RCT No. 56/2016 and 57/2016, dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner herein and ordering his eviction from the tenanted premises being shop No. J-71, Milap Market, Hari Nagar, New Delhi.

2. The Eviction Petition was filed by the respondents, being the legal representatives of the erstwhile landlord Shri Kesho Ram, against the petitioner under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (`Act'), claiming therein that the petitioner had defaulted in tendering the payment of the rent with effect from 01.06.2005 and had not paid or tendered the same inspite of service of statutory notice dated 08.11.2007.

3. By the order dated 03.09.2015, the learned Additional Rent Controller, West District, Tis Hazari Courts (hereinafter referred to as ARC) was pleased to allow the said petition against the petitioner, directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent with effect from 01.06.2005 and continue to pay the same on a month-to-month basis at the rate of Rs.400/- per month. The case was thereafter listed on 07.11.2015 for considering compliance of the interim order dated 10.09.2010 passed under Section 15(1) of the Act and to consider whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit under Section 14 (2) of the Act.

4. By the subsequent order dated 02.08.2016, the learned Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the `ARC') was pleased to deny the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act to the petitioner for having committed default in payment of rent in terms of the order dated 03.09.2015.

5. The orders dated 03.09.2015 and 02.08.2016 were challenged by the petitioner by way of the above appeals, which have been dismissed by the learned RCT.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned RCT has erred in not appreciating that the rate of rent for the premises was only Rs.300/- per month and not Rs.400/- as has been held by the learned ARC. He submits that the learned ARC has placed reliance on the counterfoil of the rent receipts for the months of April and May, 2005 to hold that the rent stood increased to Rs.400/- per month. Infact, it is the case of the petitioner that this counterfoil was signed in blank by the petitioner and had been later filled up by the respondents to show the enhanced rent.

7. He further submits that there was no default in payment of the agreed rent of Rs.300/- per month by the petitioner. Infact, inspite of the payment of rent, it is the respondents who had failed to issue the receipts. He submits that as the petitioner had been a tenant in the tenanted premises since 1976 and had good relations with Kesho Ram as also the respondents, he had no occasion to doubt the bona fide of the respondents and had never insisted upon the rent receipt. He further submits that the very fact that the respondents never demanded this rent for a period of more than two years shows that the case set up by the respondents was false, as no landlord would not initiate any action or even demand the rent, if not paid, by the tenant for such a long period.

8. As far as the statutory notice dated 08.11.2007 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same was admittedly not served on the petitioner and had been returned unserved. The respondents were well aware of the residential address of the petitioner, however, made no efforts to serve the petitioner at the said address. He