Tenant's failure to tender rent with statutory interest and prove defense against subletting justifies eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(a) and (b) - Eviction - Petitioner challenged eviction order based on alleged non-payment of rent and subletting; found not to meet statutory requirements for payment or defense against subletting claims - Court upheld eviction. (Paras 1, 10, 11)

(B) Rent payment and acceptance - The tenant was required to deposit rent with interest upon refusal; failure to comply led to eviction under Section 14(1)(a). (Paras 9, 10)

(C) Onus of proof - Onus to prove subletting and possession rested with tenant, which he failed to discharge. (Paras 12-14)

Facts of the case:
Respondent filed eviction petition against petitioner for non-payment of rent from 1999 and for subletting without consent. Petitioner contested that the rent increase was unilateral and not legally binding.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner was found in default of rent payment, with the court ruling that the obligation to tender payment at the statutory interest rate was not met, thereby justifying eviction.

Issues: The primary issues were: 1) Whether the unilateral rent increase can invalidate tenant's obligation under the previous rent; 2) Whether the tenant satisfied the legal requirements to defend against eviction for subletting.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that failure to pay rent along with interest constituted grounds for eviction under the Act, and the burden of proving that subletting was not occurring lay with the tenant, which was not met.

Result: Petition dismissed; costs imposed on the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. eviction petition filed under delhi rent control act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioner challenges grounds for eviction. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court finds no merit in petitioner's arguments. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. court dismisses petition and orders cost. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 03.12.2020 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal (West), Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as learned RCT), dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, being RCT No.23/2018, and confirming the order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller in Eviction Petition No.25647/2016, ordering eviction of the petitioner under Section 14 (1)(a) and (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") from the tenanted premises bearing no. Z-39, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi.

2. The respondent had filed the abovementioned Eviction Petition against the petitioner claiming himself to be the owner of the tenanted premises. It was alleged that the same had been rented out to the petitioner herein at a monthly rent of Rs.132/- up to 30.04.2002 exclusive of electricity charges. The respondent alleged that as the petitioner was in arrears of payment of rent from 01.10.1999 to 30.04.2002, a legal notice dated 01.04.2002 was served upon the petitioner, in response whereto, the petitioner paid rent of Rs.132/- per month alongwith interest. It was further alleged that the rent was enhanced to Rs.3,000/- per month with effect from 01.06.2002. As the petitioner again defaulted in payment of rent from 01.10.2002 to 28.02.2005, another legal notice dated 07.02.2005 was served upon him. In response to the legal notice, the petitioner tendered the rent for the abovementioned period at the enhanced rate of Rs.145.20/-, however, the same was not accepted by the respondent as it did not meet the demand of the respondent. The eviction petition was therefore, filed under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Act.

3. The Eviction Petition was also filed under Section 14 (1)(b) of the Act alleging therein that the petitioner had sublet and parted with the possession of the tenanted premises.

4. The petition was also filed under Section 14 (1)(j) and (k) of the Act, however, the same was dismissed as far as these two grounds are concerned.

5. As far as the Impugned Order upholding the eviction of the petitioner under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Act is concerned, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had unilaterally sought an enhancement of the rent from Rs.145.20/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned Additional Rent Controller in his order dated 24.04.2018 has held that the rent could not have been unilaterally increased by the respondent and that the rate of rent was Rs.145.20/-, which was duly tendered by the petitioner but not accepted by the respondent. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that as the respondent had refused the tender of the rent, the petition under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Act was liable to be dismissed.

6. He further submits that even otherwise, the petitioner has not been extended the benefit of the protection under Section 14 (2) of the Act, making the Impugned Order liable to be set aside.

7. As far as allowing of the claim of the respondent under Section 14 (1)(b) of the Act, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the said finding is contrary to law inasmuch as the onus of proving the subletting and/or parting of possession by the petitioner was on the respondent. He submits that the same was not proved on evidence. He submits that the learned RCT has placed reliance on the statement made by the alleged sub-tenant, Sh. Jyoti Singh, wherein the said Sh. Jyoti Singh has stated that he was using the tenanted premises as a partner of the petitioner. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submit