MOHD IDRIS Vs. SADAT ALI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) alleging that the petitioner was let out shop bearing No. 11/1, Ground floor, part of property No. A-10/1, Gali No.11 Agarbatti Wali, Chauhan Nagar, Jaffrabad (in short the tenanted premises) at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- vide rent agreement dated 5th April, 2002 with a security deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs. The rent was later on increased to Rs. 330/- and thereafter Rs. 363/-. It is stated that the petitioner is a regular defaulter in payment of rent and had not paid arrears of rent with effect from 1st March, 2009.

(2.) After the parties led evidence vide order dated 28th January, 2013 the learned ARC passed order under Section 15(1) DRC Act directing the petitioner to pay arrears of rent with effect from 1st March, 2009 @ Rs. 363/- per month and to continue to pay or deposit rent @ Rs. 363/- per month as directed. Matter was listed for consideration of the benefit under Section 14(2) of the DRC Act and vide order dated 30th March, 2013 the learned ARC noted that on 30th March, 2011 the petitioner was directed to pay arrears of rent @ Rs. 363/- per month from 1st March, 2009 and he was further directed to pay the future rent month by month by 15th day of each calendar month. As per the report of the Nazir the respondent deposited Rs. 9438/- as rent for the period with effect from 1st March, 2009 to 30th April, 2011 on 2nd May, 2011. The petitioner further deposited Rs. 363/- on 20th May, 2011 and no further amount was deposited. On perusing the defaults by the petitioner despite order dated 30th March, 2011 and that the order under Section 15(1) has already been passed against the petitioner on 28th January, 2013, the petitioner having failed to assign any reason for the defaults, benefit under Section 14(2) of DRC Act was rejected and eviction order was passed in respect of tenanted premises.

(3.) In appeal the learned District Judge also came to the conclusion that in the absence of any rent receipt produced the contention of the petitioner that rent stood paid till September, 2010 remained uncorroborated whereas rent was actually paid till February, 2009. The learned District Judge held that the security deposit was not liable to be adjusted at interim stages when notice of demand of arrears was issued unless there was a stipulation between the parties to the contrary and the rent having not been deposited after the first order under Section 15(1) DRC Act the eviction order was rightly passed on 30th March, 2013.