KAMLESH Vs. TAJUDDIN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 31st July, 2012 whereby his eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) and (j) was dismissed and the order dated 31st January, 2013 whereby the appeal against the said order was also dismissed. Though the eviction petition was filed under Section 14(1)(a)(c)&(j) of the DRC Act, however the petitioner subsequently gave up the prayer for eviction under Section 14(1)(c) DRC Act and confined the prayer of eviction under Section 14(1)(a)&(j) DRC Act.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of shop bearing No.2, C-102, Mandawali (Unchepar) Delhi which was let out to the respondent on 1st January, 1999. On 14th August, 2003 the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against forceful dispossession and the petitioner consented and undertook that the tenant would not be dispossessed except in accordance with law. Two demand notices dated 16th September, 2003 and 12th November, 2003 were sent to the respondent. Suit for eviction was contested on two grounds i.e. the same was barred under Section 13 of the DRC Act and the provisions of limitation Act. Trial Court framed the two issues on the said objections and it was held that the suit of the petitioner was not covered under Section 13 of the DRC Act, thus the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred under Section 50 of the said Act. However, in appeal the judgment of the learned Trial Court was set aside and during the course of hearing the petitioner herein agreed that he would return the amount of Rs. 50,000/- received as security to the respondent on vacation of the suit property.

(3.) In the eviction petition, vide order dated 2nd September, 2006 the respondent was directed to deposit arrears of rent within one month. The respondent did not comply with the order and filed an appeal which was dismissed and thereafter approached this Court which petition was also dismissed vide order dated 1st February, 2007. The respondent deposited Rs.84,000/- with the learned ARC under Section 27 of the DRC Act on 23rd September, 2007 from July, 2003 to February, 2007 except August and September 2003 without filing an application for condonation of delay nor paying the interest as required under Section 26 DRC Act. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application to strike off the defence of the respondent which was allowed vide order dated 21st March, 2007 and the said order has also attained finality as the respondent after review petition preferred a petition before this Court which was also dismissed on 20th October, 2009.