Arrears of rent under the Delhi Rent Control Act must be computed from the date of legal notice, emphasizing strict compliance with the provisions for eviction.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. Eviction Petition E18/2012 was instituted by the respondent Harsh Vardhan Nayyar against the petitioner Dr. O M Parmar, seeking eviction of the petitioner under Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 14(1)¹ of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the DRC Act), in respect of the premises at No. 32, First Floor, Shankar Market, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 ("the tenanted premises"). The eviction petition averred that the premises had been let out to the present petitioner Dr. O M Parmar by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Dr. Sushila Nayyar, for running a clinic at a monthly rent of Rs.1,200/- including electricity, water charges and other charges.

2. For ease of reference, allusion to the petitioner and the respondent would be made, hereinafter, as "Parmar" and "Nayyar" respectively.

3. The petition alleged that Parmar was in default of rent since 1st January 2001, despite service of legal notice on him, by Nayyar, on 30th September 2010. In the circumstances, Nayyar, invoking Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the DRC Act, [which for ease of reference, would be cited hereinafter as Section 14(1)(a)], sought that Parmar be evicted from the tenanted premises.

4. Consequent on trial, the learned Additional Rent Controller (the learned ARC) held that a clear case for eviction of Parmar, under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act, had been made out. Nonetheless, noting the fact that Section 14(2)² of the DRC Act proscribed the making of any order of eviction against the tenant, unless the tenant was granted 30 days time to deposit the arrears of rent as per the order passed under Section 14(1)(a) read with Section 15(1)³ of the DRC Act, the learned ARC permitted Parmar 30 days time to deposit arrears of rent @ Rs.1,200/- per month for the period from 1st January 2001 to 30th September 2010 with interest @ 15% per annum.

5. Aggrieved thereby, Parmar appealed to the learned Rent Control Tribunal (the learned RCT) vide RCT 40/13, which was subsequently renumbered as RCT 151/16.

6. RCT 151/16 stands partly allowed, by the learned RCT, vide the impugned judgment dated 26th September 2019. The learned RCT has held, in the impugned judgment, that the arrears of rent payable by Parmar would be liable to be computed with effect from 1st October 2007, and not with effect from 1st January 2001. The concluding para 11 of the impugned judgment dated 26th September 2019 of the learned RCT, therefore, holds thus:

"11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties as well as the records, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant-herein who is stated to be well educated being a doctor, was given opportunities for contesting the said petition and also leading his evidence before the Ld. Trial Court. Even no application was moved for setting aside the ex parte order. Moreover, the appellant-herein was also given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the respondent-herein/petitioner-therein and the same remained unchallenged. Thus, the appeal of the appellant herein has no merits to again give opportunity to contest the eviction petition on merits. As far as the rent amount and period is concerned, at the best, the exact period and time should have been w.e.f. 01.10.2007. Therefore, the appellant-herein is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,200/- pm with interest @ 12% till the second notice dt.25.09.2012 and thereafter an amount of Rs.1,500/- pm to the respondent-herein/petitioner-therein. With the above order and directions, this appeal is disposed off. No order to costs. Trial Court recor