RAKESH GROVER Vs. BHRAWAN WALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 21. 9. 2007 of the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal dismissing an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 15. 2. 2007 of learned additional Rent Controller.

(2.) THE respondent/landlord had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner/tenant under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in respect of tenanted premises bearing no. WZ-21, Manohar Park, New Delhi stating that rent per month was Rs. 2420/- and tenant was in arrear of rent since 01. 02. 2001. He had neither paid nor tendered the rent despite service of demand notice dated 21. 12. 2003. The tenant disputed the rate of rent and stated that it was Rs. 1210/- per month. The tenant also took the plea that the rent had been paid upto 31. 10. 2002 though without receipts. However, it was admitted by tenant that amounts were paid to the landlord by cheques and DDs @. Rs. 2420/-per month. But the tenant took the plea that this amount was paid since the landlord had requested that she was planning to take loan from the bank and financial institution and she was required to show increase in her income to the income authorities and therefore, these cheques and demand drafts were paid per month @ Rs. 2420/- only to enable the landlord to show increase in income. The tenant also took the plea that tenant was justified in suspending the rent as the electricity in the premises was disconnected. The other plea taken by the tenant was that notice of demand of rent was not duly served upon the tenant.

(3.) THE Court of Additional Rent Controller gave finding against the tenant on all the issues on the basis of evidence recorded before it. The rate of rent was held to be Rs. 2420/- per month. It was found that electricity was disconnected because of non-payment of the electricity charges by the tenant himself. It was also found that the notice of demand of arrears of rent was duly served. Against the order of learned Additional Rent Controller, the tenant went in appeal before the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal and the main contention of the tenant before the ARCT was that the Trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion that notice was duly served. The learned ARCT after reappraising the evidence and the contentions of the tenant, came to the conclusion that this plea of the tenant was baseless and the notice was duly served. The other plea of the tenant that he had paid the rent in cash without receipt was also found to be untenable.