Tilak Raj Sabharwal vs Smt. Piar Kaur & Anr.
1998 Latest Caselaw 174 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.8.1996, passed by the learned Additional Rent controller under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in Eviction Petition No.199/95, directing the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.825/- per month with effect from 1.3.1993 upto March 1995 and at the rate of Rs.907.50 per month with effect from April 1995. There is a further direction to continue to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.907.50 per month by the 15th of following month. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 1.8.1996 was dismissed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal vide order dated 9.1.1997.

2. By the present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the above orders dated 1.8.1996 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller and Order dated 9.1.1997, passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller.

3. Notice of the petition was issued on 31.3.1997 and a direction was given for deposit of rent, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is being complied with.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chopra, who has urged that the order under Section 15(1) of the Act was not warranted since the petitioner denied the very existence of the landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent and the petitioner. Petitioner contended that, in fact, the tenant was his son, Mr. C.P. Sabharwal, in whose favour numerous rent receipts had been issued by the petitioner for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980. Petitioner has filed photocopies of these counterfoils alongwith the petition. As against this, the counter-foils of receipts issued by the respondent in favour of the petitioner were only two in number. Petitioner claims these two to be forged receipts.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the impugned orders had been passed without conducting any enquiry, as is envisaged under Section 37(2) of the Act. It was also submitted that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of hearing before the learned Additional Rent Controller and the impugned order was passed at the back of the petitioner. Learned counsel contended that with so many rent receipts on record in favour of petitioner's son, the liability for payment of rent could not be fastened on the petitioner.

6. The learned Additional Rent Controller, on a prima facie view of the matter, found that an order under Section 15(1) of the Act was warranted. The learned ARC observed that the two counter foil rent receipts produced by the respondent, prima facie, appear to bear the signatures of the petitioner. These receipts were later in time to the receipts said to have been issued in favour of petitioner's son, which were produced by the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner admitted occupation of the tenanted premises since 1976, but claimed having shifted to another property at T-2502, Faiz Road, New Delhi and, finally, to C-143, Madhuban, Delhi. It is also significant that in reply to the notice of demand, petitioner, though denying the relationship of landlord-tenant, did not take the plea of his son being the tenant. This plea had been taken only in the written statement where the petitioner claimed that he was dependent on his son, Mr. C.P. Sabharwal, who was the tenant in the premises and resided with him. The learned Rent Control Tribunal, to my mind, rightly repelled the submission of the petitioner of not having been afforded the opportunity to argue the matter before the learned Additional Rent Controller based on the record of proceedings. In any case, liberty was given by the Rent Control Tribunal as well as during the hearing of this petition to urge any legal ground that the petitioner wished to urge in support of his contentions. The learned Additional Rent controller and the learned Rent Control Tribunal have duly noted and considered the pleas raised in the written statement and reply.

7. In view of the foregoing discussion and the following facts and circumstances, viz.

i) The prima facie view taken by the learned Additional Rent Controller that the counter-foils of the receipts produced by the respondent, issued in favour of the petitioner, bear petitioner's signatures;

ii) Petitioner in reply to the notice of demand, while denying the relationship of landlord-tenant, did not raise the plea of his son being the tenant or explain the basis of his occupation;

iii) There being no claim by the petitioner, either on his own behalf or on behalf of his son, whom he claims to be the tenant, of having paid the arrears of rent;

The impugned order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller and upheld by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, in my view, do not call for any interference in the exercise of discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. The petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.