SANJAY KAUSHIK Vs. HARENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 15.02.2012 passed by the first appellate court of Sh. P.S. Teji, DJ & ASJ, Karkardooma courts, Delhi, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 17.10.2011 and 21.10.2011 passed by the Ld. ARC was dismissed and an eviction order was passed by not giving benefit u/S. 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short "the Act"). The petitioner is a tenant in respect of one shop on the ground floor of property bearing No. H -31, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi -110092. The respondent landlord filed an eviction petition u/S. 14 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground that the petitioner tenant had not been paying rent with effect from 01.08.2001. A legal notice was sent on 12.09.2002, but despite the receipt of the same, the petitioner did not pay the rent. The Ld. ARC allowed the eviction petition and passed an order for eviction vide orders dated 17.10.2011 and 21.10.2011. The orders were challenged by the petitioner through appeal, and the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2012. This order is under challenge in the present petition.

(2.) U /s. 14 (1) (a) of the Act, a landlord can evict a tenant for default in payment of rent. In such cases, the Rent Controller has the power to give the tenant another chance as regards the deposit of rent. As per Section 15(1), the law gives the benefit to the tenant to deposit rent within one month of passing of an order by the court. Failure to do so for a period of three consecutive months would result in the tenant losing that benefit and an eviction order being passed against him. The judgment in the case of "Sarla Goel Vs. Kishan Chand, : (2009) 7 SCC 658", makes clear the position in law regarding non -payment of rent. The relevant portions of the judgment are as under: -

(3.) THE petitioner submitted that the failure to deposit the rent was due to financial difficulties faced by him because he was suffering from an illness and also due to the illness of his mother. In support of this, he placed on record photocopies of medical records to show that he had been admitted in hospital and that he was even operated in R.B. Gupta Medical Centre. The Id. DJ -ASJ rejected this reason stating that the respondent contradicts himself by saying he was under a financial crunch, but was able to afford treatment in a private hospital. The Ld. DJ -ASJ rightly observed that the behavior of the petitioner tenant seemed very casual and that the pleas cannot be believed as these were an afterthought.