SURINDER KUMAR JAIN Vs. CHAMPA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of Additional Rent Controller under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short `DRC Act'), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner holding that there was no merit in the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of The appeal, petitioner has filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At the outset. I must say that on the finding of fact with regard to deposit of rent by two Courts below whether deposit was in time or not, ordinarily a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ought not to have been maintained.

(2.) Mr. Meet Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners , has contended that with regard to the rent for the months of January '1993 to June' 1993 amounting to Rs. 2310/=, same was deposited on 25.1.1993 while the rent for the months of July' 1993 to December' 1993 was deposited on 7.8.1993. The rent for the next six months from January' 1994 to June' 1994 was deposited on 4.3.1994. That amount was deposited after a delay of 18 days, however, that delay was condoned by the Rent Control Tribunal.

(3.) Mr. Malhotra has contended that the delay was tried to be explained on an affidavit before the Rent Control Tribunal but the Additional Rent Controller did not take into consideration the same as the same was not permitted to be brought on record. That affidavit is at page-12 of the paper book. In the said affidavit, it has been alleged that the delay occurred on account of the fact that at the relevant time petitioners were away to Bombay for audit and tax audit of Samrat Properties Limited. The petitioners were out of town for some work which has been explained in the said affidavit. It has been further contended that, as a matter of fact, some instructions were left by the petitioners in their office that rent was to be deposited in time but as the employee concerned went away, the rent was not deposited in time and there was a bona fide mistake by the petitioners and, therefore, same ought to have been condoned by the Rent Control Tribunal. Mr. Malhotra has also challenged the order of dismissal passed by the Rent Control Tribunal on the ground that there was no ground for Rent Control Tribunal to hold that the delay was contumacious. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the case of Ram Murti Vs. Bhola Nath & another AIR 1984 SC 1392 :-