SUKHDEV RAJ ARORA Vs. M K BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the tenant challenging the order dated 6th September, 2008 of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner/tenant against the order dated 13th December, 2007 of the Addl. Rent Controller, dismissing the application of the petitioner/tenant for condonation of delay in depositing the rent and allowing the application of the respondent/landlord under Section 15 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and striking off the defence of the petitioner/tenant to the petition for eviction filed by the respondent/landlord. The test to be applied by the Rent Controller in striking off the defence of a tenant for non-compliance/default in complying with of the order for deposit of rent, made under Section 15 of the Act is of whether the default/non-compliance is contumacious or not. If the default/non-compliance is found to be inadvertent and/or unintentional and/or in spite of best efforts and intention to comply with the order, the default is not treated to be contumacious. Else, if the non-compliance shows either a deliberate attempt to deprive the landlord of rent and/or a case of negligence or showing scant regard to the order of the court, the default is held to be contumacious and the defence to be struck off.

(2.) In the present case, the two courts below have held non-compliance of the order by the petitioner/tenant to be contumacious. Both the courts have held the conduct of the petitioner/tenant to be negligent and willful. Such concurrent findings of the Controller and the Tribunal is not to be lightly disturbed by this court, specially when exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is significant that the Rent Control Act earlier provided for the remedy of a second appeal to this court against the order of the Tribunal. However, with effect from the year 1988, the provision of second appeal to this court was deleted. Notwithstanding such legislative change, this court continues to be approached, now by way of petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Second appeal to this court under the erstwhile Section 39 of the Act used to lie on a question of law. The impact of the deletion of Section 39 is that the legislature did not intend this court to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal even on question of law. The order of the Tribunal is thus intended to attain finality. Conscious of this fact, this court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 would interfere only if the test thereof are strictly satisfied.

(3.) The respondent/landlord filed the petition for eviction from which this petition arises only on the ground of non-payment of rent i.e. under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act. It was inter alia the case of the respondent/landlord that the petitioner/tenant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. November, 2003.