AMARJEET ATHOTRA Vs. MANINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed judgment dated 1st May, 2013 passed by learned Appellate Court in an appeal filed by the petitioners against the eviction order dated 22nd January, 2013 in respect of two shops on the ground floor of property No.837/1 Janpura Road, Bhogal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted premises")

(2.) Brief facts are that the respondents filed an application for eviction on 10th December, 2003 of the shops occupied by the petitioners in respect of the tenanted premises under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short, called the "Act") on the ground of non-payment of rent. The respondents claimed themselves as the owners and landlords of the tenanted premises. They have purchased the said part of the property from one Ravinder Kumar, Surender Kumar and Hari Kishan. The rent of the tenanted premises was Rs.160/- per month.

(3.) As per the case of the respondents, initially there was a wooden door dividing the shop into two portions. The petitioner No.1 was carrying on his business in one portion and the petitioner No.2 was carrying on his business in another portion. The respondents after purchasing the said property had carried out extensive repairs and improvements. It was a single tenancy, the rent of the tenanted premises was being paid by petitioner No.2 to respondent No.1 @ Rs.160/- per month. He used to sign counterfoils of the rent receipts when he paid the rent and obtained the rent receipts. In view of the extensive repairs and improvements carried out, the petitioners verbally agreed to raise the rent from Rs.160/- per month to Rs.1,000/- per month. In pursuance of the verbal agreement, petitioner No.2 on his behalf and on behalf of petitioner No.1 had paid the rent in the sum of Rs.1,000/- per month for the month of June, 2002 to the respondents. He obtained the rent receipt for the said amount from respondent No.1 and put his signature on the counterfoil of the said rent receipt. Thereafter, the petitioners have stopped making the payment of rent with effect from 1st July, 2002. The respondents thereafter served the legal notice dated 12th September, 2003 by registered post as well as through UPC asking them to clear the arrears of rent. As petitioners had neither replied the said demand notice nor they paid the rent or tendered the whole of arrears of rent legally recoverable from them, the respondent left with no option but to file the eviction petiton under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.