MOHD ABID Vs. KAUSAR PARVEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner/tenant impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Additional Rent Controller dated 22.11.2012 and the Additional Rent Control Tribunal dated 8.10.2013; by which the courts below have decreed the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlady under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') on account of non-payment of rent.

(2.) At the outset, I must note that the present/ subject eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act was a second eviction petition under this provision and an earlier petition E-63/2004 titled as Smt. Kausar Parveen vs. Mohd. Abid was decreed in favour of the landlady by the judgment of the ARC dated 27.8.2008. Eviction was however not ordered in terms of the earlier judgment dated 27.8.2008 inasmuch as, under the Delhi Rent Control Act, there is a provision of Section 14(2) of the DRC Act and which states that no eviction is ordered of the tenant if the tenant in case of first default deposits rent due in terms of an order which is passed under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act. However, the benefit of Section 14(2) of the DRC Act is only available one time and not for the second time ie if the tenant defaults again in compliance of the notice sent under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act for the second time and makes default in payment of rent for three consecutive months, then, tenant cannot get the benefit of protection against eviction under Section 14(2) of the DRC Act and tenant is ordered to be evicted.

(3.) The present petition is based upon a demand notice dated 18.12.2008 sent under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act as per which rent was demanded from 1.8.2008 to 31.12.2008 and which arrears as per the provision of Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act has to be paid in two months of service of the demand notice. This legal notice under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act was served is not disputed by the petitioner/tenant. Petitioner/tenant however has sought dismissal of the eviction petition on the ground that he had tendered the rent to the respondent/landlady within a period of two months and consequently he cannot be evicted in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Prakash Mehra Vs. K.L.Malhotra 1989 AIR(SC) 1652 Petitioner/tenant states that when by the demand notice dated 18.12.2008, rent was demanded from August 2008 to December, 2008, rent for the months of September and October 2008 (rent of August 2008 admittedly having already been received) was sent to the respondent/landlady by a money order Ex.RW1/9, and which was refused by the respondent on 4.11.2008, and on account of refusal it is argued that there is effective tender or acceptance and hence there has not taken place consecutive defaults of three months as required under law. It is also argued that petitioner/tenant deposited the rents for the months of September 2008 to February 2009 in a petition filed under Section 27 of the DRC Act on 16.4.2009, the same be taken as compliance of the demand notice and hence the petitioner is not liable to be evicted.