RAVINDER KUMAR SURI Vs. AERO TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Once again we are called upon to consider and answer the vexed question

(2.) These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the order of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, (referred to as Tribunal ) dated 22-05-2001 by which an appeal filed by the tenant against the order of the Rent Controller dated 19-03-2001 striking off the defence of the tenant for not complying with the order of payment/deposit of rent passed under Section 15(1) of the has been allowed and the tenant has been directed to deposit the arrears of rent along with penalty equivalent to the amount of rent. In CM(M) No. 512/01 the petitioner- landlord has prayed for quashing the order passed by the Tribunal while in CM (M) No. 669/01the tenant has sought for striking out certain observations/findings recorded by the Controller in its order dated 19.3.01. This order would govern the disposing of both these petitions.

(3.) The petitioner herein, has filed a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act against the tenant for his eviction on the ground of willful default in the payment of arrears of the rent despite service of a demand notice. The tenant is contesting the petition. On 22-12-1999, the Controller passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Act directing the tenant to deposit in the Court or pay to the petitioner the entire arrears of rent with effect from 1-6-1996 up date at the rate of Rs.30.00 per month within one month from the date of the order, i.e. 20-12-1999 and to continue to pay future rent at the said rate month by month by 15th of each succeeding month. Admittedly the tenant did not deposit any rent in the Court in compliance of the said order, but once an application under Section 15(7) of the Act was made for striking off the defence of the tenant, he came up with the plea that he had remitted the amount of arrears of rent through a cheque by a forwarding letter dated 3-1-2000. It was claimed that another cheque vide letter dated 30-6-2000 was forwarded but the same were, however, not received by the landlord. The Controller found the plea of the tenant as false and mischievous firstly because no proof of sending the said cheques and the letters was brought on record from the side of the tenant and held that the said plea was otherwise falsified because the arrears of rent required to be remitted with effect from 1-6-1996 to 31-12-1999 amounted to Rs. 1260.00 while the tenant claimed to have remitted a sum of Rs. 930.00 through cheque and letter dated 3-1-2000. Yet another reason which has weighed with the Controller in passing the order was that there was no compliance of the Court's order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act inasmuch as the future rent was not paid/deposited by the tenant month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month. Accordingly the Controller returned a positive finding that there was willful default on the part of the tenant in complying with the order dated 22.12.2000 passed under Section 15 (1) of the Act and consequently struck off the defence of the tenant.