JAI KISHAN Vs. KAMLESHWAR NATH ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of appropriate orders/directions for setting aside the impugned order dated 7 th December, 2012, passed by the learned Rent control Tribunal (in short RCT) in RCT No.70/2012 and order dated 17 th September, 2012, passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC) in Eviction Petition No.E-150/2011/08.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not a case of second default for the reason that petitioner tendered the rent for the period May, 2005 to June, 2006 @ Rs.127/- per month by money order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on Shashi Kumar Vs. Dharam Pal, 1981 RLR 191 which explained the legal position prevalent at the time when rent was tendered through money order that rent sent through money order was a valid tender and on refusal to receive the money, the tenant could not be said to have committed default. It is further submitted that the rent through money order was sent prior to the legal position, clarified in Sarla Goel and ors. Vs. Kishan Chand, 2009 7 SCC 658, which was delivered in the year 2009 and this decision cannot have retrospective effect so as to deny benefit under Section 14(2) of the DRC Act to the tenant.