NARENDRA SINGH Vs. BALMUKAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, both the above referred petitions are being disposed of as they arise out of the two identical orders of Addl. Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT).

(2.) The petitioners are the tenants under the respondents in respect of their respective portions of the suit premises. Their eviction was sought by the respondents under Sections 14(1)(b), 14(1)(d), 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act'). Identical separate orders were passed against them under Section 15(2) of the Act. There being certain delays/defaults in compliance of the said order under Section 15(2) of the Act, the applications were filed under Section 15(7) of the Act seeking striking of their defences. The petitioners filed application seeking condonation of delay in depositing the rents in compliance of the orders under Section 15(2) of the Act. The learned ARC vide separate orders of 6.2.2010 condoned the delay, subject to payment of cost and simultaneously dismissed the applications under Section 15(7) of the respondents. The respondents carried the matters in appeal before the ARCT, who set aside the orders of ARC and struck off the defence of the petitioners under Section 15(7) of the Act. These orders are under challenge in the instant petitions.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the respondents in person and on going through the orders of ARC as also that of the ARCT, it comes out to be an admitted case that the petitioners failed to comply the orders under Section 15(2) of the Act in its terms and spirit, meaning thereby that there were certain delays in deposit of rents in compliance of these orders. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the orders under Section 15(2) were passed on 22.1.2003 and having regard to the meager rent, it was also ordered that the rent could be deposited annually as well. There is no dispute in this regard.