SUNITA CHAUHAN @ GAYATRI DEVI Vs. VIRENDRA SINGH GUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal dated 20.11.2013 which has dismissed the first appeal filed under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The first appeal was filed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 27.9.2013 refusing to restore the dismissed in default Deposit of Rent Petitions filed under Section 27 of the Act. The reasons for refusing to set aside the dismissed in default petitions are that the applications under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) lacked bonafides and were also time barred.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent/landlord had filed an eviction petition for non -payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, which has been decreed by the Additional Rent Controller on 30.10.2010. Subsequently, the Additional Rent Controller passed an order dated 08.5.2012 declining benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act against eviction on the ground that there was default in compliance of the order of deposit of rent under Section 15(1) of the Act. The order dated 08.5.2012 was challenged in a first appeal and the same was set aside by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal by its judgment dated 08.4.2013 and the matter was remanded back to the Additional Rent Controller to decide the issue of benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act afresh vide judgment dated 02.05.2013.

(3.) BY Deposit of Rent (DR) petitions filed under Section 27 of the Act, the petitioner was seeking to deposit rent from 01.1.2011 onwards and which has been held to be a malafide act because the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act was already decided on 30.10.2010 wherein only the amount had to be deposited under Section 15(1) of the Act. Obviously, the DR petitions under Section 27 of the Act for the period from 01.1.2011 were misconceived and malafide because actually the rent was to be deposited before the Additional Rent Controller under Section 15(1) of the Act wherein the petitions under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act were pending. Also, there is a limitation period provided for deposit of rent under Section 27 of the Act vide Section 28 of the Act and which is that the rent for a particular month has to be deposited maximum by the end of the first week of the next calendar month for which the rent is to be paid and which period had expired at the time of filing of DR petitions, and also the period of one month from passing of the judgment on 30.10.2010 had expired during which the rent had to be deposited.