RAKESH SHARMA Vs. USHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 21st January, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal (NE) whereby an appeal of the petitioner against order of eviction passed by the Additional Rent Controller was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the landlord (respondent herein) filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act against the petitioner on the ground of non -payment of rent. The rent was stated to be Rs. 390/ - p.m. excluding of other charges. The petition was contested by the tenant (petitioner herein) on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and respondent, the premises was taken on rent from Smt. Angoori Devi and respondent was not legal heir of Angoori Devi. It was also submitted that there was no cause of action on the ground of non -payment of rent since the petitioner had been depositing rent under Section 27 of DRC Act in view of the fact that the petitioner did not recognize the respondent as the owner.

(3.) DURING trial, both the sides produced evidence. The petitioner during his cross examination admitted that the respondent was the owner -landlord of the property in question. He also admitted in cross examination that the rate of rent was Rs. 375 p.m. he however, disputed service of legal notice dated 27th November, 2004 but the learned ARC after perusal of evidence led by landlord in respect of sending of notice came to the conclusion that the demand notice of rent was sent and received by the petitioner. The learned ARC after going through the evidence regarding payment of rent came to the conclusion that petitioner did not pay rent since September 2004 and he was in arrears of rent since September, 2004 despite service of legal notice. An order under Section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act was passed. Then came the issue of giving benefit of Section 14(2) of DRC Act. The trial Court called a report from the Nazir regarding deposit of rent by the petitioner under Section 27 of DRC Act and found that the petitioner had failed to comply with the Order under Section 15(1) of DRC Act he did not deposit the arrears of rent w.e.f. September, 2004 till the date of passing of eviction order. The report of Nazir on 19th August, 2006 showed that the petitioner had deposited rent w.e.f. 1st May, 2006 to 31st August, 2006, there was no deposit made for the period September, 2004 to April, 2006. In view of this clear violation of order under Section 15(1) of DRC Act, the learned ARC held that the petitioner was not entitled for benefit to Section 14(2) of DRC Act. In appeal, the learned Additional Rent Controller Tribunal again appreciated the facts and considered the challans of deposit and the affidavit filed by the petitioner and found that the petitioner had not even made an averment in the affidavit that he deposited rent w.e.f. September, 2004 till filing of the eviction petition. It was also found that the petitioner contended of making deposits in various Courts under Section 27 however, no evidence was led by the petitioner to prove that he had deposited the rent in different Courts. Learned ARC Tribunal also observed that a tenant who seeks to deposits rent under Section 27 of DRC Act has to comply with the provisions of Section 26, 27 & 28 of the DRC Act and a conjoint reading of all these provisions would show that the tenant was to tender rent every month and in case of non acceptance of rent by the landlord, he has to deposit the same within 20 days with the ARC. A mere filing of application under Section 27 of depositing rent or a mere challan does not ipso facto prove that the rent was validly deposit under Section 27 of DRC Act.