S N GOEL Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner S.N.Goel filed an eviction petition against the Respondent Vinod Kumar under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') which was dismissed vide order dated 30th January, 2013. The appeal filed against the order of the learned ARC was also dismissed on 3rd September, 2013 and thus S.N.Goel prefers the present petition.

(2.) In the eviction petition S.N.Goel stated that one shop on the ground floor of property No.2591, Tota Ram Bazar, Trinagar, Delhi (in short 'the tenanted premises') was let out to the father of Vinod Kumar. The rent was increased to Rs.44/- per month w.e.f. 1st September, 2010. The tenanted premises was originally owned by the father of S.N.Goel late Mitthan Lal Goel who passed away on 22nd September, 2004. Mitthan Lal Goel was survived by S.N.Goel and other legal heirs, that is, S.K. Goel, S.P.Goel and Shyam Sunder Goyal. Thus S.N.Goel along with other legal heirs became the joint owners of the tenanted premises. Even during the lifetime of Shri Mitthan Lal Goel, the father of Vinod Kumar was not paying rent and thus eviction petition under Sections 14 (1) (a) (b) (c) and (j) of the DRC Act was filed in the year 1985. The relief under Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act was granted but not under Sections 14 (1) (b) (c) and (j) of the DRC Act. Since benefit of Section 14 (2) of the DRC Act was given vide judgment dated 19th July, 1999 the Respondent Vinod Kumar was not evicted. Vinod Kumar deposited the rent from 1st August, 2009 to 31st December, 2009 under Section 27 of the DRC Act. Due to non-payment of rent a legal notice dated 13th July, 2010 was served on Vinod Kumar however, he did not make the payment of arrears of rent despite legal notice and thus the eviction petition was filed.

(3.) In the written statement Vinod Kumar took plea that the legal notice dated 13th July, 2010 was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act. It consisted of only two pages wherein paras-1 and 2 appear on the first page and paras-7 to 10 on the second page. Paras-3 to 6 were missing in the notice sent to Vinod Kumar. S.N.Goel examined himself as PW-1. Though he proved the site plan of the shop and the copy of the earlier judgment dated 19th July, 1999 however, he did not prove the notice. S.N.Goel was confronted with the incomplete notice sent to Vinod Kumar vide Ex.PW-1/DA however, he could not identify the said notice to be the one which was sent to Vinod Kumar. The eviction petition was dismissed for the reason that the Petitioner could not prove the legal demand notice being served on the Respondent. The appeal filed by S.N.Goel was also dismissed.