SHARWAN JAIN Vs. RADHEY SHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner at the outset concedes that the respondent has already executed the impugned judgment and decree whereby possession of the suit/tenanted premises has been taken. Counsel for the petitioner states that in spite of this position, he has instructions to press the petition.

(2.) THE concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Additional Rent Controller dated 24.11.2012 and the Rent Control Tribunal dated 03.2.2014; decree the eviction petition of the respondent/landlord filed under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of non -payment of rent. Since the default was a case of second default, petitioner has not been granted benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act and eviction has been ordered.

(3.) AT this stage, let me refer to the relevant para 6 of the impugned judgment dated 3.2.2014 of the Rent Control Tribunal which deals with this aspect and which also refers to the earlier statements and earlier order passed in the earlier eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. This para 6 reads as under: -