SHOBHA DAVID Vs. OM PRAKASH GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 30th August, 2008 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner/tenant's appeal against an eviction order dated 22nd December, 2007 by denying petitioner/tenant the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the act" ).

(2.) MR. Manoj K. Singh, learned Counsel for petitioner/tenant submitted that the initial default having been condoned by rejection of respondents/landlords' application under Section 15 (7) of the Act, the petitioner/tenant could have been evicted only if she made a subsequent default in payment of rent for three consecutive months. Mr. Manoj K. Singh stated that it was not even the respondents/landlords' case that the petitioner/tenant had committed a second default of non-payment of rent for three consecutive months. He clarified that even according to the respondents/ landlords, the second default in payment of rent was only for a period of six days and, therefore Mr. Singh submitted that the petitioner/tenant was not liable to be evicted under the Proviso to Section 14 (2) of the Act. Section 14 (2) of the Act reads as follows:-

(3.) MR. Amarjit Singh, Learned Counsel for respondents/ landlords on the other hand submitted that the impugned order of eviction had been passed not on the ground of Proviso to Section 14 (2) of the Act but on account of non-payment of rent by the petitioner/tenant, which fell in Sections 14 (l) (a) and 15 read with the initial part of Section 14 (2) of the Act.