DHARAMVIR WALIA Vs. DHANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Rent Controller dated 20.12.2010 and the Rent Control Tribunal dated 2.12.2011; whereby the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord for non -payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') was decreed and an eviction decree was passed against the petitioners/tenants. At the outset, it is required to be stated that admittedly the present default is a case of second default and if there is a second default no benefit would be available to the petitioners/tenants against eviction as per Section 14(2) of the DRC Act which provides that an eviction decree is not passed only if the case is a case of first default. Once the tenant gets benefit of Section 14(2) of the DRC Act on the first default, and thereafter there are consecutive defaults of three months in payment of rent, and a legal demand notice sent as per Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act is not complied with, eviction decree has to follow.

(2.) THE issue which was argued in the present case before this Court as also before the courts below was that whether there is compliance of the demand notice sent under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act in the situation where the rent is deposited under Section 27 of the DRC Act, but, the petition under Section 27 of the DRC Act is in fact dismissed in default and even no notice was issued to the landlord in the deposit of rent petition under Section 27 of the DRC Act.

(3.) THE case of the petitioners that the deposit of rent in a deposit of rent petition under Section 27 of the DRC Act is compliance of the demand notice sent under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act although the deposit of rent petition is dismissed in default even prior to issuing of notice therein, is based upon the judgment (which is reported only as a short note) of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Vidyawati & Ors. Vs. L.B. Mann & Anr., 42 (1990) DLT 15 SN. This short note reported reads as under: -