RAJIV KUMAR Vs. MEENA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitions challenge the impugned orders dated 22 nd July, 2016 passed by the ld. Rent Controller and the order dated 20th April, 2017 passed by the ld. Rent Control Tribunal by which the eviction petition filed by the Respondent/Landlord (hereinafter, "Landlord") has been allowed. The background is that an eviction petition was filed by the Landlord - Smt. Meena Sharma against the Petitioners/Tenants (hereinafter, "Tenants") under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Initially, vide order dated 5th September, 2006, the Tenants were held to be in breach and a decree was passed under Section 14 (1)(a). However, benefit was given under Section 14(2). Since there were defaults by the tenant, the matter reached this Court in CM(M) 796/2014 and CM(M) 797/2014. The question that came to be considered in the said petition was whether future defaults by the Tenant could be considered for the purpose of refusing benefit under Section 14(2). The petitions were decided by this Court vide the said order dated 3rd March, 2015 and the matter was remanded back to the ld. ARC in the following terms:

(2.) The ld. Single Judge of this Court had, as per the above order, set aside the impugned orders and had remanded the matter back to the ld. ARC. The first impugned order which is under challenge i.e. order dated 22nd July, 2016 was an order passed on remand. The ld. ARC, has, after analysing the various payments made by the Tenant and the question as to whether the tenant is entitled to benefit under Section 14(2), arrived at a conclusion that the Tenant was a defaulter and had committed violation of the order dated 5th September, 2006. In view thereof, the ld. Rent Controller, passed an order for eviction. The observations of the ld. Rent Controller are as under:

(3.) This order was carried in appeal by the Tenant, resulting in order dated 20th April, 2017 of the ld. RCT. The finding of the ld. RCT is as under: