C.M. (M) No.266/2008

Page No.1 of 7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

C.M. (Main) No.266 of 2008

%

22.03.2010

SAMEER WASON & ANR.

…...Petitioners

Through: Mr. P.K. Rawal & Ajay Bahl, Advocates.

Versus

RAJINDER KUMAR LAMBA

…...Respondent

Through: Mr. Sunil Lalwani, Advocate.

Date of Reserve: 19^th January, 2010

Date of Order: March 22, 2010

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

Yes.

J U D G M E N T

1.

By this petition, the petitioners have assailed an order dated 15^th October, 2007

passed by learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby on appeal the order of

eviction passed by Additional Rent Controller was reversed.

2.

The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the

petitioners-landlord filed an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant on the ground

of non-payment of rent under Section 14 (i) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act. This eviction

petition was upheld, however, the tenant was given benefit of Section 14 (2) of Delhi

Rent Control Act and the eviction order was not passed. The landlord again filed an

eviction petition on the ground of second default because of not making payment of rent

by tenant consequently for three months despite a notice of demand dated 6^th June, 2001.

It is not disputed that in response to the notice of demand sent by landlord, the tenant sent

2010:DHC:1676

C.M. (M) No.266/2008

Page No.2 of 7

a reply stating that he was including a draft of Rs.1,200/- towards the arrears of rent. He

also gave particulars of the draft in the reply. However, landlord did not find pay order

annexed with reply and vide a counter reply informed the tenant that reply was not

accompanied with the alleged pay order. The tenant sent a reply to the counter reply and

insisted that he had sent the pay order and he also asked the landlord to send his bank

account number so that future controversy can be averted. The landlord filed the eviction

petition.

3.

The learned ARC recorded evidence on this issue and it was proved that a pay

order of Rs.1,200/- was got prepared by the tenant in the name of landlord. However,

learned ARC found that this was not sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 14 (2)

and observed as under :-

second default committed by the respondent.”

4.

Learned ARC found that since benefit of Section 14 (2) had already been granted,

this was a case of second default and the tenant was not entitled for any further protection

and passed an eviction order on 12^th April, 2007. The learned ARCT before whom the

appeal was preferred by the tenant observed as under :-

2010:DHC:1676

C.M. (M) No.266/2008

Page No.3 of 7

“Once the draft was purchased in the name of the respondent he

consideration by the trial court.”

5.

The only issue which arises for consideration by this court is whether the view

taken by the learned ARCT was in consonance with established law and should this court

interfere presuming that it was a case of refusal of landlord in receiving rent. The law

regarding second default and refusal of landlord in receiving rent has been well settled by

catena of judgments. The Supreme Court in Sarla Goel vs. Kishan lal; 2009 Rajdhani

Law Reporter 369 (SC) observed as under :-

2010:DHC:1676

C.M. (M) No.266/2008

Page No.4 of 7

………….

2010:DHC:1676

C.M. (M) No.266/2008

Page No.5 of 7

…………….

……………….

2010:DHC:1676

C.M. (M) No.266/2008

Page No.6 of 7

6.

The above legal position as laid down by the Supreme Court in respect of second

default and the procedure to be followed by the tenant i