D C RAI Vs. RAMPHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 15. 7. 2008 passed by the learned ARCT dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of learned ARC dated 25. 4. 2007 under section 45 (3) of DRC Act.

(2.) THE petitioner wanted restoration of electric supply of his shop and filed a petition under section 45 of the DRC Act. He made an application for interim restoration of the supply. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not paying the rent and electricity charges, he had no right to claim restoration of electricity. The learned Addl. Rent control Tribunal also came to same conclusion.

(3.) A perusal of record shows that the petitioner claimed that initially rent was only Rs. 350/- and thereafter it was enhanced to Rs. 1,000/ -. He had been paying rent without any rent receipt issued by the landlord. Whereas landlord claimed that the rate of rent was Rs. 1000/- and it was gradually enhanced to Rs. 3200/ -. He thereafter served a notice under section 6a on the tenant for 10% enhancement of the rent w. e. f. 1. 1. 2006. The landlord produced the counter foil of the rent receipt showing that the tenant was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 3200/- after service of the notice when the tenant had initially stopped paying rent and he paid rent upto August 2004 Thereafter again he stopped paying rent. The landlord was compelled to file the suit for recovery. It was also pleaded that the premises had gone out of the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act.