LATA MALHOTRA Vs. DHAN SHOB RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. Lata Malhotra felt aggreived with the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC) under Section 15(7) of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act). By the ARC's order her defence was struck off. It ultimatly led to the passing of an order of eviction against her. The appeal preferred by her was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 3rd August,1996.

(2.) She has raised two legal questions, which according to her are of general public importance and requires authoritative pronouncements. These are namely, (i) whether delay in deposit of rent can be condoned; (ii) whether the Appellate Court ought not to interfere with the finding of negligence returned by the Trial Court?

(3.) In order to appreciate these points, we must have a quick glance to the relevant facts of the case. The respondent/ landlord filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(a)(c) & (j) of the Act. This Court in SAO.No.279/71 fixed the rent of the premises in question at Rs.125.00 per month. Directions were given to the present petitioner to pay the arrears of rent for the period 1st July,1982 to 30th September,1989 and further rent be paid month by month. It was the case of the tenant that the legal heirs of the landlord did not accept the rent when tendered for the subsequent period. She had always been willing to pay the rent. However, the contentions of the landlord are contrary to the case set up by the present petitioner when according to the landlord/respondent herein rent was not paid regularly. He filed a petition under Section 15(1) of the Act. The Trial Court passed an order on this application under Section 15(1) of the Act on 23rd May,1995 thereby directing the petitioner to pay arrears of rent within one month and further to pay monthly rent by 15th of each English calender month. Respondent/landlord alleged that inspite of the order under Section 15(1) of the Act, the tenant did not pay rent regularly. Rent for June,1995 was paid in July,1995 and for the month of September, October, November, December,1995 and January,1996 the tenant/petitioner did not pay the rent nor deposited the same in Court. When six month's rent was not deposited the landlord/respondent took out notice under Section 15(7) of the Act. The petitioner herein took the plea that the rent for the said period was sent by her through her employee Mr.Manoj Sharma for being deposited in the Court. Mr.Manoj Sharma confirmed to her in September,1995 itself that the rent had been deposited. She had in fact deposited advance rent for the months of September, October, November, December,1995 and January,1996. On receiving the information from her counsel that the rent for six months had not been deposited, she deposited the rent of six months on 23rd February,1996. Therefore, there was no negligence or willful default on her part. However, respondent/landlord alleges that she was a habitual defaulter.