YASHPAL DHAWAN AND ANR. Vs. MOHINDER SINGH CHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 7th September 2009 whereby the learned trial court decided an application under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act and asked the petitioners to deposit arrears of rent with effect from March, 2003 till date (the period permissible under law of limitation) within one month from the date of order.

(2.) It is not disputed that the rate of rent was Rs.1320/- per month. The respondent landlord had taken the stand that the rent stood increased to Rs.1450/- per month in view of the right of landlord to get 10% increase under DRC Act. He had also alleged that the petitioners were in arrears of rent since July, 1999. The tenant in the reply to the application had taken the stand that the rent was paid up to August, 2001. However, it was not denied that the rent was not paid after August, 2001 but rather a stand was taken that the tenants had spent an amount of Rs.20,000/- each on some construction undertaken in the premises of the landlord (respondent herein) and the tenants(petitioners herein) had paid a sum of Rs.2,05,560/- to DVB on behalf of landlord and this amount was adjustable towards rent. It is submitted that there was an electric connection in the name of original landlord and this meter was being used by all the tenants and the tenants were making payments as per the sub-meter to the landlord. The landlord did not deposit the amount with DVB, consequently arrears of Rs.1,53,930/- accumulated and the electricity was disconnected. Thereafter, with the permission of landlord, the petitioners had taken up the matter with DVB the petitioner together paid different amounts to DVB totaling to Rs.2,05,560/-. It is submitted by the counsel for petitioners that the trial court should have allowed adjustment of the amount spent by the petitioner on re-connection of electricity and on construction made by the petitioners.

(3.) The trial court dealt with this issue and observed that there was no consent available on record for construction made by tenant nor there was admission on the part of landlord in respect to electricity dues, nor a notice was issued by the tenants to the landlord before payment of alleged due and, therefore, such an adjustment cannot be allowed under Section 15(1) of DRC Act.