MADAN LAL Vs. SUKHESH CHAND GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 30.08.2011 of Addl. Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 30.11.2010 of Rent Controller, New Delhi, was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant in respect of one shop No. 43, Block No. 1, Bengali Mal Market, New Delhi under the respondent. The suit shop came in the exclusive ownership of the respondent vide a partition deed dated 9.6.2000 executed between the co-owners. The petitioner attorned to the respondent and paid him rent for the period from 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2000. The petitioner having failed to pay the rent, thereafter, a demand notice dated 26.4.2002 was issued to him by the respondent. The said notice was replied by the petitioner on 14.5.2002. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent alleging the non-payment of rent by the petitioner with effect from 1.4.2000, despite service of notice. In the written statement that was filed by the petitioner, the defence taken was that he had been regularly paying rent to the respondent, but he (respondent) refused to receive the same, and therefore, the rent was sent by money-order on 4.5.2002, and the same having been tendered and refused, the due rent was sent by another money-order dated 13.5.2002. On return of the said moneyorder also, the petitioner deposited the rent for the period 1.4.2000 to 30.4.2002 @ 21.45 per month and from 01.05.2010 to 30.06.2010 @ 23.59 per month in the court of Rent Controller under Section 27 of the Act. Based on this premise, it was averred that the rent was duly tendered on receipt of notice and thus, the petition was not maintainable.

(3.) The petition was put on trial. The respondent examined himself as AW1. The petitioner led his evidence by way of affidavit. The Rent Controller recorded that the petitioner failed to pay or tender the rent despite receipt of notice dated 26.04.2002, but since he had complied the order under Section 15 (1) of the Act, he was entitled to benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act. In this manner, the petition was disposed.