BABU LAL Vs. KAILASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assails order dated 22.12.2011 of District Judge-cum-Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT), South, New Delhi, whereby appeal challenging the judgment dated 07.07.2005 of Additional Rent Controller (ARC) in eviction petition No. 133/1996, was dismissed.

(2.) THE respondent had filed eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') against petitioners /tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent despite notice of demand dated 28.05.1996. The eviction was sought in respect of a DDA flat bearing No. 109-B, Sunlight Colony, Hari Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi. The learned ARC recorded findings in favour of the respondent/landlord. He also directed the petitioners to pay to the respondent or deposit in the Court arrears of rent @ Rs.300/- per month with effect from 15th October, 1993 till the date of order within one month of the order. This being the case of first default, he extended benefit of section 14(2) of the Act to the appellant. The appellants carried the matter in appeal which came to be dismissed by the learned ARCT. He, however, remanded the matter back to the ARC to consider and examine as to whether the order under Section 15(1) of the Act had been complied with by the appellant.

(3.) THE main challenge to the order of the ARC and the learned ARCT are on two counts. Firstly, that they have erred in recording the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the respondent being the owner of the tenanted premises. Secondly, both the courts below have erred in recording about due service of notice of demand upon the petitioners.