PUNITA SAHNI Vs. KAILASH SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred the present petition to impugn the order passed by Ms. Kaveri Baweja, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, in E-590/06/98 dated 26.04.2008 thereby striking off the defence of the petitioner-tenant under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as well as the appellate order passed by Sh. Rakesh Kapoor, Additional Rent Control Tribunal (West) in R.C.A. No. 02/09/08 on 23.03.2009, dismissing the petitioner's appeal from the first order.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord had initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 14(1)(b) and 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. An order under Section 15(2) of the said Act was passed on 25.04.1994, whereby the petitioner was directed to, inter alia, pay or deposit rent @ Rs.2,000/- per month by 15th of each succeeding English calendar month.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the rent for the aforesaid period was not deposited as directed vide order dated 25.04.1994. The stand taken by the petitioner before the learned ARC for not depositing the rent was that the rent had been delivered to a clerk of the counsel Sh. Sanjeev Mehta, named Ravi. However, Ravi played a fraud and did not deposit the rent for the three months. It was stated that Ravi was residing in a Jhuggi cluster area in Wazirpur, Delhi. It was further stated that the receipt provided by the clerk was illegible and the petitioner did not know that the rent for the said three months had not been deposited. Condonation of delay in depositing the rent was prayed for by the petitioner. The respondent, on the other hand, challenged the story set up by the petitioner as being false. It was contended that no action had been taken against the said clerk, nor any complaint lodged against him either by the petitioner or his counsel. The conduct of the petitioner in not depositing the rent for these three months was also consistent with several previous defaults in the deposit of rent.