DEV CHAND JAIN Vs. SUKESH CHAND GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) 162/2021 and CM APPL. 7487/2021 This petition has been filed challenging the order dtd. 19/9/2020 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal in RCT No. 126/2016, allowing the appeal of the respondent herein in challenge to the order dtd. 22/8/2015 of the learned Additional Rent Controller, which in turn had dismissed the Eviction Petition filed by the respondent herein filed under Sec. 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Rent Control Tribunal has failed to appreciate that on receipt of the demand notice dtd. 24/3/2006 from the respondent, the petitioner had tendered the full amount of the legally recoverable rent alongwith 15% interest per annum thereon by way of a Money Order. On refusal of the respondent to accept the same, the petitioner had deposited the legally recoverable rent under Sec. 27 of the Act, albeit with some delay. The deposit was made even prior to the filing of the Eviction Petition by the respondent. She submits that in the peculiar facts of this case, the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Goel and Ors. vs. Kishan Chand, , has been wrongly applied by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, inasmuch as it is not the case where rent under Sec. 27 was not deposited by the petitioner.

(3.) I find no merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the petitioner claims to have tendered the full amount of legally recoverable rent alongwith interest thereon in his reply dtd. 17/4/2006 to the legal notice of the respondent, even today, the petitioner is not in a position to confirm if the deposit made by the petitioner under Sec. 27 of the Act was of the full amount of the rent legally recoverable from him alongwith interest thereon as is the requirement of Sec. 26 and 27 of the Act. In absence thereof, no benefit could have been obtained by the petitioner by making partial deposit under Sec. 27 of the Act, and the requirement of Sec. 14(1)(a) of the Act was made out against the petitioner. The learned Rent Control Tribunal has also observed the same in the Impugned Order. The relevant findings of the learned Rent Control Tribunal in this regard are reproduced hereinbelow:-