Eviction may be challenged if notice is filed before the tenant's compliance period lapses; timely adherence to rent payment schedules under the DRC Act is critical.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)(a), 15(1) and 27 - Eviction proceedings initiated on the ground of default in rent payment - Petitioners contended eviction notice was premature, citing valid cheque tender - Court found a first default in rent payments. (Paras 3-4, 15-19)

(B) Legal compliance in rent deposits - Court emphasized the need for timely rent deposits under DRC Act, including adherence to specific payment schedules. The Nazir's report was found inaccurate affecting tenants’ rights. (Paras 21-23)

Facts of the case:
The respondent filed for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) based on the argument of the tenant's default in rent payment, with eviction orders issued post non-compliance on the part of the petitioners.

Findings of Court:
The petitioners did not comply with strict payment terms but had made some payments, which were substantiated to exceed owed amounts on occasion.

Issues: Whether the eviction notice was maintainable given premature filing and the status of rental arrears.

Ratio Decidendi: Eviction is warranted for defaults in rent; however, given the nature of the alleged defaults, minor lapses justified considering the respondents' claims.

Result: Petitions allowed; eviction orders set aside, but first default acknowledged.

Table of Content
1. initial factual background of eviction case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding alleged default and compliance. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. court's analysis of compliance with rent payment. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. observations on nazir's report and compliance issues. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. final decision nullifying previous orders while upholding first default. (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

1. These two petitions have been filed by the legal representatives (L.Rs.) of the original tenant against whom the respondent herein, Smt. Shanti Devi had filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Delhi Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act). Since the parties are the same and since the impugned orders arise out of the same proceedings, both petitions are being disposed of vide this common order.

2. CM (M) 537/2020 has been filed against the order dated 17th October, 2020 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge/Rent Control Tribunal (RCT), Shahdara Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, dismissing the appeal preferred by the present petitioners against the orders of the learned SCJ-cum-RC dated 23rd January, 2017. CM (M) 541/2020 has been filed by the petitioners against the order of the RCT dated 17th October, 2020, upholding the judgment of the learned SCJ-cum-RC dated 21st July, 2018 (also mentioned as 16th July, 2018).

3. As already noticed, an eviction petition had been filed by the respondent/landlady under Section 14 (1)(a) of the DRC Act in respect of one shop situated on the ground floor ad-measuring 6ft x 8ft in property bearing No.9/6829, Janta Gali, Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi-110031, on the ground that the petitioners had defaulted in paying the rent, despite service of demand notice dated 11th April, 2016. The learned Rent Controller (RC) vide the judgment dated 23rd January, 2017 concluded that the tenant (now deceased) was in default in the payment of rent and that the respondent/landlady had established her entitlement to seek eviction of the petitioners under Section 14 (1)(a) of the DRC Act. But another chance was granted under Section 15 (1) of the DRC Act to the tenant, directing him to, within one month from the date of the order, pay the arrears of rent @ Rs.180/- per month with effect from 1st April, 2016 till 30th April, 2016 and @ 198/- per month with effect from 1st May, 2016 till date, along with interest @15% per annum, as per Section 26 of DRC Act, adjusting whatever rent that had already been deposited.

4. The learned Rent Controller fixed the case for verifying compliance and called for Nazir's report and on the basis of the Nazir's report concluded vide the impugned judgment dated 21st July, 2018 that the petitioners had not complied with the orders under Section 15 (1) and thus were not entitled to the protection under Section 14 (2) of the DRC Act and accordingly directed eviction of the petitioners from the suit property.

5. Both the judgments i.e., dated 23rd January, 2017 and 21st July, 2018 were challenged by way of appeals under Section 38 of the DRC Act before the learned RCT (being RCT No.25/18 & RCT No. 30/18), which were dismissed vide the order dated 17th October, 2020. Hence the present petitions.

6. The foremost arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mohit Gupta, is that the eviction petition itself was not maintainable inasmuch as the notice of demand was dated 11th April, 2016 and the petition was filed on 24th May, 2016, even prior to the two months' time allowed to the petitioners to make compliance, had elapsed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Anand Prakash v. Gain Chand Swara, 1992 SCC OnLine Del 396.

7. It has also been argued that the learned RC had wrongly concluded that there was default, holding that the tenant had failed to deposit the arrears of rent under Section 27 of the DRC Act. Learned counsel argued that two cheques had been sent along wi