SHOKI CHAUDHARY Vs. MUKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the tenant impugning the judgments of the courts below; of the Rent Controller dated 16.5.2013 and the Additional Rent Control Tribunal dated 5.12.2013; by which the eviction petition of the landlord filed under Section 14(1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'DRC Act') has been decreed and now the case is fixed for further proceedings to find out as to whether the petitioner/tenant has complied with the order of deposit of rent under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act. It must be noted that in case of first default, and the present is the case of first default, tenant is not evicted by virtue of the benefit of Section 14(2) of the DRC Act in case the tenant pays/deposits the rent in terms of the order passed under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act.

(2.) At the outset I must state that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are extraordinary and discretionary powers. While exercising these powers this Court does not sit as an appellate court. This Court does not interfere with the findings and conclusions of the courts below, once out of the two possible and plausible views, the courts below takes one possible and plausible view. The one possible and plausible view in this case is with respect to whether rate of rent was Rs.1000/- per month as stated by the petitioner/tenant or was Rs.2500/-. Courts below have held that the rate of rent was Rs.2500/- per month by appraising evidence noting the fact that the petitioner/tenant did not cross-examine the landlord or the other witness PW-2 with respect to the rate of rent, and therefore rate of rent would stand admitted.

(3.) The only issue argued before me by the counsel for the petitioner however is different and which is that the demand notice dated 18.10.2007 was not served upon the tenant and therefore the petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act was bound to be dismissed. This aspect has been considered by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal/first appellate court in para 12 of the impugned judgment and which para reads as under:-