$~32 & 34

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 29.01.2021

+

CM(M) 72/2021 & CM APPLs. 3126/2021 & 3127/2021

BASANT LAL

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.R.B. Trivedi & Mr.Saurabh

Sachdeva, Advs.

versus

NIRMLA DAWAR & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

None.

(34) CM(M) 74/2021 & CM APPLs. 3233/2021 & 3234/2021

BASANT LAL

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.R.B. Trivedi & Mr.Saurabh

Sachdeva, Advs.

versus

SMT NIRMLA DAWAR & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

1. These petitions have been filed challenging the common

judgment/order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the learned Rent Control

Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RCT’) in RCT No. 56/2016

and 57/2016, dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner herein and

ordering his eviction from the tenanted premises being shop No. J-71,

Milap Market, Hari Nagar, New Delhi.

2. The Eviction Petition was filed by the respondents, being the

legal representatives of the erstwhile landlord ShriKesho Ram, against

the petitioner under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,

2021:DHC:342

1958 (‘Act’), claiming therein that the petitioner had defaulted in

tendering the payment of the rent with effect from 01.06.2005 and had

not paid or tendered the same inspite of service of statutory notice

dated 08.11.2007.

3. By the order dated 03.09.2015, the learned AdditionalRent

Controller, West District, Tis Hazari Courts (hereinafter referred to as

ARC) was pleased to allow the said petition against the petitioner,

directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent with effect from

01.06.2005 and continue to pay the same on a month-to-month basis at

the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. The case was thereafter listed on

07.11.2015 for considering compliance of the interim order dated

10.09.2010 passed under Section 15(1) of the Act and to consider

whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit under Section 14(2)

of the Act.

4. By the subsequent order dated 02.08.2016, the learned

Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ARC’) was

pleased to deny the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act to the petitioner

for having committed default in payment of rent in terms of the order

dated 03.09.2015.

5. The orders dated 03.09.2015 and 02.08.2016 were challenged

by the petitioner by way of the above appeals, which have been

dismissed by the learned RCT.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned

RCT has erred in not appreciating that the rate of rent for the premises

2021:DHC:342

was only Rs. 300/- per month and not Rs. 400/- as has been held by

the learned ARC. He submits that the learned ARC has placed reliance

on the counterfoil of the rent receipts for the months of April and

May, 2005 to hold that the rent stood increased to Rs. 400/- per month.

Infact, it is the case of the petitioner that this counterfoil was signed in

blank by the petitioner and had been later filled up by the respondents

to show the enhanced rent.

7. He further submits that there was no default in payment of the

agreed rent of Rs. 300/- per month by the petitioner. Infact, inspite of

the payment of rent, it is the respondents who had failed to issue the

receipts. He submits that as the petitioner had been a tenant in the

tenanted premises since 1976 and had good relations with Kesho Ram

as also the respondents, he had no occasion to doubt the bona fide of

the respondents and had never insisted upon the rent receipt. He

further submits that the very fact that the respondents never demanded

this rent for a period of more than two years shows that the case set up

by the respondents was false,as no landlord would not initiate any

action or even demand the rent, if not paid, by the tenant for such a

long period.

8. As far as the statutory notice dated 08.11.2007 is concerned, the

learn