RAJ KUMARI Vs. SHEELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 01.03.2012 whereby the learned Addl. Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents/landlords, and set aside order dated 21.05.2007 passed by learned Addl. Rent Controller in E-1676/06, and consequently, passed an eviction order under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') in respect of basement of property No. 5A/17, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi (suit premises), against the petitioner/tenant.

(2.) In the earlier eviction petition being E-27/88 under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Act, the petitioner was given benefit under Section 14 (2) of the Act vide order dated 15.2.1996. Thereafter, another eviction petition was filed by the respondents herein being E-1676/2006 under Section 14(1)(a) read with Section 14(2) of the Act against the petitioner/tenant alleging default in payment of rent w.e.f. 5.12.1997. A legal notice dated 28.5.1998 was alleged to have been served upon the petitioner/tenant by registered A.D. as also by affixation, demanding arrears of rent w.e.f. 5.12.1997 to 4.7.1998 at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month and w.e.f. from 5.7.1998, at the rate of Rs. 385/- per month. It was averred that the notice tendered personally was refused by the petitioner and that the same was served by the affixation on the outer door of the suit premises on 5.6.1998 by respondent No. 1 Narender Kumar Jain along with Vinod Kumar.

(3.) In the reply, the petitioner/tenant raised a preliminary objection that no notice as contemplated under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was served upon her and also no notice dated 28.5.1998 was ever sent or received by her.