NARINDER KUMAR AHUJA Vs. OM PRAKASH AHLUWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent / landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner / tenant under Section 14(1)(j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act') on ground of causing substantial damage to the tenanted premises. The tenanted premises consist of a portion of property No. 63A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, which was let out to the petitioner in terms of a written agreement dated 04.12.1998. The tenanted premises are two rooms on the ground floor with permission to remove the partition wall. The agreed monthly rental was Rs.1,500/-. It was alleged in the petition that the petitioner caused substantial damage to the premises by making material structural additions and alterations without the written consent of the respondent. The respondent alleged that shortly after letting of the premises on 31.12.1998, the petitioner started large-scale construction, repairs / alterations whereby the partition wall between the two rooms was removed without the prior approval of any Architect (contrary to the mandate of the agreement) and the floor of the tenanted premises was dug up to the extent of 4.5 ft. depth and 13 ft. in length and 8 ft. in width. A civil suit for injunction was filed at that stage to restrain the petitioner in which status quo orders were passed.

(2.) The petitioner contested the eviction petition and denied the allegation. The parties led their evidence and the Additional Rent Controller (for short, 'ARC') in terms of the order dated 14.03.2005 held that the grounds under Section 14(1)(j) of the said Act were made out. However, the petitioner was granted an opportunity to restore the tenanted premises to the original condition within one month from the date of the order.

(3.) It may be noticed that during the pendency of the petition, upon an application by the petitioner under Section 15(2) of the said Act, an order was passed on 21.09.2000 directing the petitioner to pay or deposit rent @ Rs.1,500/- per month w.e.f. 01.02.2000. The rent was, however, not deposited w.e.f. March, 2004 and, thus, the defence of the petitioner was liable to be struck off. This fact is noted in para 12 of the judgment of the ARC. However, despite this, the ARC proceeded to examine the case on merits.