KISHAN CHAND Vs. SARLA GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated July 11, 2007 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in RCA No. 33/07 titled Smt. Sarla Goel & Ors. v. Kishan Chand. By virtue of the impugned order the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the suit premises under Section 14(1)(a) read with Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Act').

(2.) It is not disputed by the petitioner that he has already availed of the benefit of Section 14(2) read with Section 15 of the Act pursuant to an order dated December 3, 2001 passed by Shri Rajiv Mehra the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in eviction case No. E-105/99 titled Jagdish Kumar Goel v. Kishan Chand. The petitioner is now facing the charge of committing second default in payment of rent to the respondent in respect of the suit premises. It is also not disputed that on the date the demand notice dated March 31,2003 was served upon him by the respondent, he was in arrears of rent for three consecutive months from January 2003 onwards. On receipt of demand 'notice from the respondent the petitioner had sent the arrears of rent for three months for the period from January 1, 2003 to March 31, 2003 by money-order on April 2 2, 2003. The respondents do not dispute that they refused to accept the money order and consequently the same was received back by the petitioner. Their case is that on their refusal to receive the money order the petitioner ought to have taken recourse to Section 27 of the Act by depositing the arrears of rent with the Rent Controller and he having not done so he was liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the ground of second default under Section 14(1)(a) read with Provisio to Section 14(2) of the Act. In support reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court , Atma Ram v. Shakuntala Rani, 2005 7 SCC 211

(3.) The tenant however submits that he having tendered the entire arrears of rent within less than a month of service of notice of demand by means of a money order he is protected, and has not committed second default.