* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 19.01.2012
+ CM(M) No. 517/2001 & CM Nos. 854/2001 & 1025/2001
R.K.SUREKHA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Anil Airi, Adv.
versus
J.P.JAIN & SONS (HUF) ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Pramod Kumar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 The order impugned is the order dated 27.07.2001 which has been passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) endorsing the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 03.12.1999 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed.
2 Record shows that an eviction petition has been filed by the landlord J.P. Jain & Sons (HUF) under Section 14 (1)(a) & (d) of the DRCA against his tenant R.K. Surekha. The provisions of Section 14 (1)(a) are relevant for the controversy in dispute before this Court. Both the fact finding courts i.e. the ARC and the ARCT had decreed the eviction petition in favour of the landlord on the CM(M) No. 517/2001 Page 1 of 5 ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent and inspite of notice of demand having been served upon him, he had not tendered the rent within the stipulated time period of two months; he was liable for eviction under Section 14 (1)(a). The Court had also noted that the defence of the defendant had been struck off on 29.10.1999 against which admittedly no appeal has been filed by the tenant; the contention of the tenant is that since the final arguments were concluded within a short period thereafter i.e. on 16.11.1999 and the judgment was delivered by the ARC on 03.12.1999, the order striking out his defence dated 29.10.1999 was challenged in the main appeal itself.
3 Record shows that prior to filing of the eviction petition, a legal notice dated 17.03.1993 was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant at two addresses i.e. at his address at 1/10B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi as also the second address i.e. M-14 B, NDSE Part-II, New Delhi. This notice as per evidence on record was dispatched on 19.03.1993. The eviction petition further states that a cheque dated 20.05.1993 of Rs. 6,000/- was delivered to the landlord on 24.05.1993.
4 Both the courts below had noted that since the defence of the defendant cannot be read as his defence has been struck off vide an order dated 29.10.1999 which has since attained a finality, CM(M) No. 517/2001 Page 2 of 5 in terms of averments made in the eviction petition and the details as noted in the legal notice sent by the landlord, it is clear that the tenant was in arrears of rent as the legal notice dated 17.03.1993 was dispatched on 19.03.1993 and the payment of arrears of rent on 24.05.1993 was outside the stipulated period of two months; eviction decree had accordingly followed in favour of the landlord. 5 At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that this Court is sitting in its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and unless and until there is a flagrant injustice which is caused by one party to the other and there has been manifest error of law committed by the two courts below, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is not called for. To support his submission, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment reported as AIR 1975 SC 1297 Babhutman Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte and Another; the contention being that mere errors of facts are not permitted to be corrected by the High Court in its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution; the evidence cannot be reappreciated.
6 With this background, the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties have to be appreciated. The first and CM(M) No. 517/2001 Page 3 of 5 foremost point is that the defence of the defendant has been struck off on 29.10.1999 and this order has attained a finality. There is a little explanation as to why this order was not challenged and why the tenant waited for the judgment to follow on 03.12.1999 where he took it up in first appeal before the ARCT. The pleas of the petitioner alone can be read and since the defence of the defendant has been struck off, his defence pleaded in the trial Court cannot be looked into. The legal notice sent to the petitioner has been proved as Ex.AW-1/2; postal receipts are Ex. AW-1/3 & Ex. AW-1/4; A.D. card is Ex. AW-1/5. This document shows that the legal notice has been duly served upon a representative of the tenant on 20.03.1993. Since the defence of the tenant cannot be looked into, the averments in the eviction petition qua this stand are read; eviction petition discloses that a cheque dated 20.05.1993 had been tendered by the tenant to the landlord which was delivered only on 24.05.1993; it is not in dispute that this cheque was credited in the account of the landlord on 27.05.1993. The date of credit may not be relevant but the date of receipt of the cheque is 24.05.1993 which clearly shows that the time period of two months for payment for arrears of rent had elapsed till that time and as such the tender of arrears of rent on 24.05.1993 by a cheque dated 20.05.1993 was not a CM(M) No. 517/2001 Page 4 of 5 valid tender. Benefit of Section 14 (2) of the DRCA also could not have been granted to the petitioner since his defence has already stood struck down. The eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA was thus rightly decreed. This fact finding has been endorsed by both the courts below.
7 This Court sitting in its power of superintendence; it cannot interfere as no flagrant error has been pointed out. Moreover, it would be relevant to state that in the grounds of appeal filed before this Court (page 11 of the paper book) in sub-para 40, the petitioner has admitted that there was an unintentional delay on the part of the petitioner in depositing the future rent; meaning thereby that he has himself admitted that there was a delay by him in depositing the arrears of rent. As such the arguments advance till now that the arrears of rent have been paid in time hold no good.
8 The impugned order decreeing the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J JANUARY 19, 2012 A CM(M) No. 517/2001 Page 5 of 5