SURINDER SINGH ARORA Vs. HARI RAJ SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 23rd January, 1991, whereby he directed the tenant/petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent from October, 1981 to February, 1988 at the rate of Rs. 2,000.00 per month at which rate the rent was last paid and thereafter with effect from March 1, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 2200.00 per month and to pay future rent month by month by 15th of each succeeding month at the rate of Rs. 2200.00 per month. The respondent was given one month's time to pay the arrears of rent.

(2.) The relationship between the landlord and the petitioner is admitted. It is not in dispule that the premises in dispute were originally let out in the year 1981 fora period of four years under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and the rate of rent at that time was Rs. 1650.00 per month. After the expiry of the limited period of tenancy, the petitioner was allowed to continue in occupation of the suit premises but the rate of rent was enhanced Rs. 2000.00 per month. It is this enhancement of Rs. 2,000, the petitioner has challenged. According to the petitioner/tenant, though he issued cheques of Rs. 2,000.00 per month but according to him it was Rs. 1650.00 per month for rent and Rs. 350.00 as loan amount to be adjusted at the time of vacating the premises. The Rent Control Tribunal did not accept this contention of the petitioner and held that the order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, for the payment of the arrears of rent should be at the rate of Rs. 2,000.00 for the period October, 1988 to February, 1989 and from March 1989 onwards at the rate of Rs. 2,200.00 per month because of 10% increase under Section 6(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. According to him, it is the 1st hand rent. The order passed under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is in the shape of an interlocutory order and the language of this Section shows that in every proceedings for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14, the Controller shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, make an order directing the tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Controller within one month of the date of the order an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was not paid for the period for which the arrears of rent were legally recoverable from the tenant including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which payment or deposit is made and to continue to pay or deposit, month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. It is out of place to mention here that in this case no standard rent has been fixed nor there is any stipulation in the lease agreement that the rent should be increased after a periodical interval. In this case, admittedly the cheque issued by the petitioner/tenant is Rs. 2,000.00 . His plea that it included Rs. 350.00 as loan to be adjusted in future at the time of vacation is still to be decided. At the moment there is nothing on record to indicate that this plea is acceptable.

(3.) I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. I find no juridictional error in the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal warranting any interference in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed at the stage of admission itself.