The court established that a tenant should not lose their right to defense without clear evidence of obstinacy in rent payment, emphasizing judicious discretion in applying penalties under the Act.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal (in short `RCT') in appeal, being RCT No.138/2018, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 17.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller-01, Central (in short `ARC'), dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing of an application seeking review of the order dated 14.03.20211 passed by the learned ARC under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'), and consequently allowing the application of the respondent herein under Section 15 (7) of the Act.

2. The respondent had filed an eviction petition, being E.No.821/2014, against the petitioner under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Act, claiming that the petitioner is a tenant with respect to property, being Middle Flat on the first floor of building no.27, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 at rate of rent of Rs.850/- per month exclusive of electricity and water charges. Paragraph 14 of the Eviction Petition asserts that the date of letting out of the tenanted premises is 16.07.1998 "on the basis of written agreement". It is important to note here itself that the Agreement dated 16.07.1998, however, gives the rent as Rs.750/- per month. In the eviction petition, the respondent claimed arrears of rent of Rs.22,950/- for the period with effect from 01.04.2008 to 30.06.2010 at the rate of Rs.850/- per month.

3. The petitioner herein filed his reply to the eviction petition, disputing the rate of rent and claiming the same to be Rs.750/- per month. On the first date of his appearance before the learned ARC, on 27.10.2010, the petitioner also tendered a demand draft of Rs.26,350/- dated 21.10.2010 to the respondent.

4. On 14.03.2011, the learned ARC passed the following order on the application filed by the respondent under Section 15 (1) of the Act:

"14.03.2011

Present: Counsel for petitioner.

Counsel for respondent.

Parties in person.

A sum of Rs.26,350/- has already been paid on behalf of respondent to the petitioner through Bank Draft on 27/10/2010 against receipt.

Argument heard on the application U/s. 15 (1) of the DRC Act.

The rate of rent is Rs.850/- per month which is admitted by the parties and relationship is also not denied. Hence, application U/s. 15 (1) of the DRC Act is disposed of without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Respondent to deposit the legally recoverable rent which is due till the month of March, 2011 within one month from today in the Bank Account number i.e. 0115000100442064, PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi and will continue to deposit the future rent in the aforesaid Bank Account during the pendency of the present petition. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall have any bearing upon the merits of the present case. Hence, put up for PE on 06/07/2011. Advance copy of affidavit be supplied at least 15 days before the next date of hearing. Parties to file their list of witnesses within 15 days from today."

5. A perusal of the above order would show that Rs.850/- per month was taken as the rent admitted by the parties.

6. It is not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner, however, continued to pay/deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.750/- per month thereafter.

7. Based on the purported default by the petitioner, on 26.09.2012, the respondent filed an application under Section 15 (7) of the Act, seeking striking off of the defence of the petitioner herein. The petitioner, on the other hand, filed an application under Sec