KARAN SINGH & ANR Vs. RAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the first call, no one was present for the petitioner and therefore a pass-over was granted. Even on the second call, no one appears for the petitioner. I have therefore gone through the record and am proceeding to dispose of this petition.

(2.) The petitioners/landlords impugn the concurrent judgments of the Additional Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal dated 7.6.2012 and 17.8.2013 respectively, by which the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act') on the ground of second default in payment of rent has been dismissed.

(3.) A reading of the impugned judgments shows that the notice issued under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act is dated 9.5.2008 and rent was sent to the petitioners by a money order which was refused and therefore the rent was deposited before the Rent Controller under Section 27 of the Act on 6.7.2008. The petition under Section 27 was itself earlier filed on 1.7.2008.