PREM NARAIN Vs. VISHNU AVTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned judgment is dated 01.12.2004; it had been delivered by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT); the findings returned by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) had been set aside. The ARC vide its order dated 21.12.2002 had given the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA); the ARC had returned a finding that since this is a case of first default, benefit of Section 14 (2) be granted to the tenant; this judgment was the subject matter of appeal before the RCT who had reversed this finding.

(2.) RECORD shows that an eviction petition has been filed by the landlord Prem Narain against his five tenants, all daughters of Khem Chand who was the original tenant. The demised premises is a shop bearing No. 937/11, Ward No. VII, Main Bazar, Mehrauli, New Delhi which had been tenanted out at a monthly rent of Rs.13/ -. The contention of the landlord was that the tenants were in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.06.1988 which was not tendered inspite of the legal notice served upon them on 31.01.1991. This notice had been proved as Ex. PW -1/2; Ex.PW -1/R1 was a letter of the tenant prior in time to Ex.PW -1/2; this is dated 29.11.1990 informing the landlord that he was persistently refusing to recognize the aforenoted respondents as legal representatives of the original deceased tenant (Khem Chand) and inspite of their repeated efforts to pay the rent to the landlord, he was not accepting it.

(3.) THE only answer which has to be answered is as to whether the deposit of rent made by the tenant on 05.02.1991 under Section 27 of the DRCA was a 'valid tender of rent' in terms of Section 14 (i)(a) of the DRCA. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1977 RLR (SC) 412 Dr. Brahamanana Vs. Smt. Kaushlyadevi as also a judgment of a Bench of this Court reported as 1988 RLR (NSC) State Vs. Ramesh Kumar S. Jain; contention being that a tenant is entitled to deposit the rent in Court only if the landlord does not accept or refuses to take the rent either directly or indirectly from the tenant; a straightway deposit of rent without fulfilling the aforenoted statutory condition is not a valid tender of rent. Submission of the landlord being that there was no refusal by the landlord to accept the rent in terms of the notice dated 31.01.1991 which in fact had been received by the tenant only on 07.02.1991 and as such the tender of rent by the tenant on 05.02.1991 was not a valid tender.