JASBIR SINGH Vs. MANJIT KAUR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the petition, being CM(M) No. 1041/2011, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed orders dated 19th May, 2011 and 26th August, 2010, where the order passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order, i.e. the eviction order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 26th August, 2010 in respect of a shop in the property bearing no. XVII/2568, Gali Mandir Wali, Shadi Khampur, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the tenanted premises"). In other petition filed by the same petitioner, being RC. Rev. 179/2013, he challenged the eviction order passed in second petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, under Section 25B(8) of the Act. Since facts in both the matters are common, both petitions are being decided by single order.

(2.) FIRSTLY I shall deal with the petition, being CM(M) 1041/2011. The brief facts of the same for the purpose of adjudicating are that the respondents had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the ground that petitioner is habitual and wilful defaulter in making payment of rent and had failed to pay or tender the arrears of rent since September, 1991.

(3.) IN the written statement so filed by the petitioner, the relationship of landlord -tenant between the parties as well as the rate of rent was disputed. It was contended that the petitioner is the tenant of one Gurcharan Singh Roopra whose whereabouts were not known for more than 14 years, and also that the rate of rent was Rs. 20/ - per month and not Rs. 200/ - as stated by the respondents in their petition, which used to be collected by Gurcharan Singh Roopra only. It was averred that once respondent No. 3 had collected rent by misrepresenting that he was collecting the rent on behalf of Gurcharan Singh Roopra but when he was asked to show the authority letter, he did not visit again to collect rent. It was stated that even in the reply to the legal demand notice, the relationship of the parties was denied by the petitioner.