MOHD SAIED Vs. MODEL PRESS P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the tenant with respect to the order dated 23rd January, 2007 of the Addl. Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter called Tribunal) allowing the appeal of the respondent/landlord and setting aside the order of the Addl. Rent Controller (hereinafter called Controller) and allowing the petition for eviction filed by the respondent/landlord against the petitioner/tenant under Section 14 (1) (a) (non payment of rent) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

(2.) The parties were/are not at issue as to the relationship of landlord and tenant, the rate of rent or the period for which the rent was unpaid. The petitioner is a tenant under the respondent at a rent of Rs.1,413.50p p.m. The rent was not paid w.e.f. 1st April, 1998. It appears that the petitioner/tenant in August, 1999 instituted a petition before the Controller under Section 45 of the Act alleging that the respondent/landlord had deprived the petitioner/tenant from the use of latrine which formed part of the tenancy premises and claiming suspension of rent on that account. The respondent/landlord got issued a notice dated 8th December, 1999 of demand of rent and without which the petition for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent could not have been filed. Section 14 (1) (a) requires the tenant to, in response to the said notice, within two months pay the rent; else the tenant becomes liable for eviction.

(3.) The petitioner/tenant in the present case, well within two months, under cover of a reply dated 21st December, 1999 sent a cheque towards rent from 1st April, 1998 to 31st December, 1999. It was also mentioned in the said reply dated 21st December, 1999 that the said cheque was being sent without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner/tenant. Though it was also mentioned in the said reply dated 21st December, 1999 that the petitioner/tenant had earlier also under cover of a letter dated 26th November, 1999 sent a cheque for rent (and which fact was controverted by the respondent/landlord) but in view of a cheque for rent having also been admittedly sent under cover of the said reply, we need not concern ourselves with whether the letter dated 26th November, 1999 with a cheque for rent was sent or not. However in the said reply dated 21st December, 1999 it was inter alia stated that the cheque was being sent to avoid the ejectment petition on the ground of non-payment of rent and subject to the decision on suspension of rent in the petition already filed as aforesaid under Section 45 of the Act.