SADA RAM Vs. NIRMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED judgment is dated 06.04.2011 which was the judgment passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) had allowed the appeal and had reversed the finding returned by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 17.08.2009.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord Sada Ram seeking eviction of his tenant Nirmal Singh on the ground under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). It is not in dispute that in the first eviction petition which had been filed by the landlord in the year 1996, vide order dated 10.12.1999 benefit of Section 14 (2) of the DRCA had been granted to the tenant. Second eviction petition had been filed on 01.10.2004. The RCT had dismissed this eviction petition holding that prior to filing of this eviction petition, notice of demand for payment of arrears of rent had not been served by the landlord upon the tenant. This is evident from the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord has vehemently submitted that the legal notice dated 12.01.2004 which had been sent by him which was a reply-cum-notice was prior to filing of the eviction petition and this has clearly made a demand for the arrears of rent. Contents of this document i.e. notice dated 12.01.2004 have been perused. No such demand has been made.

(3.) IN this background, in the facts of the present case the impugned judgment holding that this second eviction petition is liable to be dismissed as there was no notice served by the landlord upon the tenant calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent suffers from no infirmity.