MEENA SHARMA Vs. RAJIV KUMAR; DHARAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed a petition against Rajiv Kumar and another petition against Dharam Pal and Bharat Bhushan for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) for eviction of the tenants for non -payment of rent along with an application under Section 15(1) DRC Act.

(2.) RAJIV Kumar is the son of Dharam Pal. Tenanted premises comprise of two rooms in property bearing No.IX/6933, Prem Gali, Gandhi Nagar one being let out to Rajiv Kumar at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/ - and the other to Dharam Pal and Bharat Bhushan other son of Dharam Pal at a monthly rent of Rs. 400/ - excluding electricity and water charges for residential purposes. Respondents were proceeded ex -parte and the petitioner led her ex -parte evidence. She exhibited the site -plan Ex.PW -1/1, legal notice dated 24th June, 2005 Ex.PW -1/2, postal receipts Ex.PW -1/3 and PW -1/4 respectively, certificate of posting Ex.PW -1/5, two letters dated 16th September, 2005 and 20th September, 2005 as Ex.PW -1/6 and PW -1/7, the reply from the postal department Ex.PW -1/8 and rent receipt Ex.PW -1/9. From the evidence on record the learned ARC came to the conclusion that the petitioner has been able to establish landlord tenant relationship and there was definitely arrears of rent on the date of service of legal notice and despite service of notice, the respondents have not made the payments of arrears of rent within two months of the receipt of notice. Vide the identical orders dated 15th September, 2006 the learned ARC in the two petitions held that the petitioner is entitled to a decree of eviction subject to the provisions of Section 14(2) DRC Act. The Court passed orders under Section 15(1) DRC Act directing the respondent to pay the petitioner or deposit in the Court the entire arrears of rent with effect from September, 2003 within a period of one month from the date of order along with interest @ 15% per annum. Since the respondents were ex -parte a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to them within three days through registered post as well as UPC for information.

(3.) THE respondents received the order on 3rd October, 2006 and entered appearance before the Court on 19th October, 2006 the date fixed by the learned Trial Court for consideration of the entitlement of the respondents to the benefit under Section 14(2) DRC Act. On the said date the respondents neither deposited the rent nor moved an application for condonation of delay, however an application for deposit of rent was filed by the respondents on 28th October, 2006. In the said application the respondent stated that judgment was served on them on 3rd October, 2006 and thus they were prejudiced in not -complying with the order. It was further stated that in compliance of the order Rajiv Kumar along with Suresh Trehan went to the house of the petitioner on 9th October, 2006 with Rs. 40,000/ - to pay rent and the interest as directed in Suits No.211/2005 and 212/2005 but it was disclosed that the petitioner was away to Bangalore to meet her daughter who was studying there and that she would come to Delhi only a day prior to Diwali. Again on 23rd October, 2006 Rajiv Kumar along with Pankaj Sukhija went to the house of Petitioner where they met her husband who stated that his wife had gone to Punjab in connection with the death and will come back later and thus they sought permission to deposit the rent with the Court. Vide order dated 30th October, 2006 the application of the respondents dated 28th October, 2006 was allowed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner.