Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
NAVIN CHAWLA
Anita Devi Tulsian – Appellant
Versus
Subh Karan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)
CM 5837/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM(M) 133/2021 & CM 5836/2021
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the judgment dated 20.10.2020 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal in Appeal, being RCT No.17/2019, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.07.2018 that was passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller in Eviction Petition No. E-196/14/09, granting benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to the respondents herein.
2. In the eviction petition filed by the petitioner, an order dated 07.12.2011 under Section 15 (1) of the Act came to be passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, directing as under:
"Without prejudice to the contention of the respondent, the respondents are directed to pay rent at admitted rate from three years immediately preceding the filing of present petition till date within one month from today. The respondent shall pay future rent at the same rate by the 15th of each succeeding month."
3. The eviction petition was finally decided in favour of the petitione
The court upheld the respondents' protection under Section 14(2) of the rent control statute, affirming that minor defaults in rent payment do not constitute grounds for eviction.
The exercise of discretion under Section 15(7) of the Act is discretionary and depends on contumacious or deliberate default, as held by the Supreme Court.
Full payment of rent along with applicable interest is a prerequisite under the Delhi Rent Control Act; failure to substantiate this leads to eviction.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's limited jurisdiction to re-appreciate evidence as an Appellate Court and the application of legal principles from relevant case laws in....
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 comp....
Tenant's failure to tender rent with statutory interest and prove defense against subletting justifies eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
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....
Non-payment of rent and failure to prove the nature of possession of the alleged sub-tenant can lead to eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
The court emphasized the importance of diligently pursuing legal remedies and the need to avoid acting contumaciously in the context of eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
