The party claiming compliance with eviction orders must prove timely compliance, and reliance on unproven documentation without cross-examination is insufficient.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)(j), 14(1)(k), and 22 - Petitioners sought eviction for unauthorized construction by respondents; the court considered the burden of proof regarding the removal of breaches of the lease agreement. (Paras 4, 10, 20)

(B) Legal Principle - The onus is on the party claiming compliance with remedial orders to establish such compliance. Reliance on unproven affidavits without cross-examination is insufficient to discharge this burden. (Paras 26, 30)

Facts of the case:
The Trust filed for eviction, claiming unauthorized constructions by the respondents in the leased premises; the respondents denied these allegations. The initial eviction petition was dismissed, leading to a series of appeals and findings on compliance with lease terms.

Findings of Court:
The Rent Control Tribunal found the respondents did not satisfactorily prove timely compliance with the order to remove unauthorized constructions, thereby upholding the principle that the burden of proof rested with the respondents.

Issues: Whether the respondents removed unauthorized constructions within the required timeframe and the correctness of evidentiary considerations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that reliance on unproven documents and the improper allocation of onus upon the petitioners to disprove compliance led to an erroneous judgment; legal findings must align with established evidentiary standards.

Result: Both petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the eviction petitions and allegations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. details of earlier judgments and findings on unauthorized construction. (Para 6 , 8 , 12)
3. remand orders and compliance issues regarding breach removal. (Para 7 , 10 , 14)
4. parties' arguments regarding the compliance and evidentiary burden. (Para 15 , 16 , 18 , 19)
5. determining timing of breach removal and implications for eviction. (Para 21 , 22 , 26)
6. conclusion on the merits of the case and dismissal of petitions. (Para 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Asha Menon, J. Since these two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed challenging the same judgement of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge/Rent Control Tribunal ("RCT") dated 10th November, 2020, the petitions are being disposed of vide this common order.

2. The litigation between the parties seems to have had a chequered history. Two eviction petitions, being, No. E-1/86 and E-16/99 had been filed on 24th December, 1985 and 19th May, 1988 respectively by Shri Swami Goverdhan Rangachari ji Maharaj, Managing Trustee, and other trustees on behalf of Shri Thakur Rangji Maharaj Trust ("the Trust") which manages the Rangji Temple, Vrindavan, Distt. Mathura, U.P against M/s. A.J. Printers, under Section 14 (1)(j) & (k) and Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("DRC Act") as amended from time to time respectively. We are concerned here only with the eviction petition filed under Section 14 (1) (j) & (k).

3. For the sake of convenience, since two petitions are being disposed of by this common order, the Trustees, being the petitioners in the original eviction petitions shall be referred to as "petitioners" herein and M/S A.J. Printers, the respondents in the original eviction petition shall be referred to as "respondents" in this order.

4. The case set up by the petitioners was that three rooms, drawing-cum-dining, Pantry, kitchen, two servant quarters and one garage on the ground floor of Bunglow No.97, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi had been let out to the respondents in terms of a written Lease Deed dated 1st October, 1972 for residential purposes at the monthly rent of Rs.2,500/-, excluding electricity, water and other charges. The petitioners alleged that the respondents had unauthorisedly covered the open inner courtyard by glass and a room had been unauthorisedly constructed in the rear portion of the premises, apart from Duchhatti over the corridor. It was also alleged that the respondents had changed the main gate of the premises which was facing south and unauthorizedly constructed another main gate, facing west. This resulted in substantial damage to the premises. Further, the Land & Development Office ("L&DO"), which was the superior lessor, served a notice on the petitioners alleging breach of the terms of the Perpetual Lease granted to the petitioners on account of such unauthorized constructions and also threatened to forfeit the lease and re-enter the premises.

5. The respondents had contested the allegations and denied that they had made any unauthorized construction in the premises. It was submitted that originally, the inner courtyard was covered with Asbestos Sheets, which had decayed during the course of several years and were replaced by glass panes. It was denied that any additional room had been unauthorisedly constructed and it was claimed that this room had been in existence at the time when the premises were let out. It was claimed that minor deviations could be regularized by the L&DO on payment of nominal compounding charges and there was no occasion for the constructions being described as a breach of the terms and conditions of the lease. It was denied that the L&DO had threatened re-entry.

6. Vide judgement dated 16th July, 2003, the learned Rent Controller ("RC") held that the tenanted premises had remained in the same nature and condition as it was when it was originally let out and th