(1.) This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Additional Rent Controller dated 12.8.2011 and the Rent Control Tribunal dated 13.3.2012; by which the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord for nonpayment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') has been decreed.
(2.) The case of the petitioner/tenant was that he was not the tenant inasmuch as he had agreed to purchase the suit property under the agreement to sell dated 20.6.2005 and that the petitioner/tenant had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.
(3.) I may note that the court of the Additional Rent Controller has noted in para-4 of its judgment dated 12.8.2011 that the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner/tenant relying upon an agreement to sell has been dismissed. As of today, this judgment stands as it has not been set aside, and therefore, the petitioner/tenant cannot seek to place reliance upon the said agreement to sell. Though counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner has recently filed a regular second appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in this Court against the judgment dated 25.1.2008 dismissing the suit for specific performance however, I am doubtful that if a judgment of the year 2008 can be successfully challenged by an RFA filed in the year 2014. In any case, I need not observe anything further in this regard because the issue in the present case is really that the petitioner/tenant had failed to comply with the order of the deposit of pendente lite rent and future rent month by month passed under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act on 10.9.2010, and consequently, the defence of the petitioner/defendant was struck off. Not only the defence was struck off, by an order dated 15.11.2010, the review petition against that judgment dated 15.11.2010 was dismissed on 27.11.2010. An appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant against the order dated 10.9.2010 and 15.11.2010 was also dismissed on 6.4.2011. Therefore, the order with respect to striking off the defence of the petitioner/defendant has become final. There is hence no evidence of the petitioner/tenant whereas on the other hand respondent/landlady has led evidence and proved her case.