HARISH KUMAR Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against an order dated 28.03.2009 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner/tenant against an order dated 09.05.2008 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit rent @ Rs. 330/- per month w.e.f. 01.05.2008 and to continue paying the same. By the very same order, an application filed by the petitioner/tenant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was also dismissed. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 28.03.2009, by which the review application preferred by him was dismissed vide order dated 04.06.2009, on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.

(2.) Vide order dated 09.05.2008 passed by the Additional Rent Controller on a petition preferred by the respondent/landlady under Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the application filed under Section 15(1) of the Act was disposed of while directing the petitioner/tenant to deposit rent @ Rs. 330/- per month in the Court w.e.f. 01.05.2008, on or before 15th day of each succeeding English calendar month and further, continue to pay the said amount in future. It was clarified that the aforesaid order was passed in view of the petitioner's own stand that he was depositing rent in respect of the tenanted premises, in a separate petition, @ Rs. 330/- per month which, as per him, included a sum of Rs. 130/- towards electricity consumption charges. However, the stand of the respondent/landlady was that the sum of Rs. 330/- did hot include the electricity charges. While observing that the aforesaid stand would be established only after trial and could not be adjudicated at that stage, the aforesaid interim order was passed directing the respondent to deposit rent @ Rs. 330/- per month as indicated above. By the aforesaid order, the learned Additional Rent Controller also dismissed an application filed by the petitioner/tenant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the petition preferred by the respondent/landlady, by holding that the said application was not maintainable as it contained disputed questions of fact between the parties, which could be decided only after trial.

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 9.5.2008 passed by the learned the Additional Rent Controller, the petitioner/tenant preferred an appeal before the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2009. The Additional Rent Control Tribunal affirmed the order of the Additional Rent Controller and held that the petitioner was rightly directed to continue depositing rent @ Rs. 330/- per month in view of the fact he was himself depositing rent at the aforesaid rate in petitions filed by him under Section 27 of the Act. The Tribunal also upheld the order of the learned ARC rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC while holding that disputed questions of fact could not be looked into while deciding an application of such a nature.