Parvin Gogia vs Shri Dayal Chand & Others
1999 Latest Caselaw 876 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Addl. Rent Controller striking out the defense under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Rent Control Tribunal. That appeal was also dismissed holding that the default committed by the petitioner was wilful and contumacious.

2. Mr. Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the petitioner has paid the rent from February 1992 to February, 1994, during the lifetime of the previous owner namely Shri R.C. Rajput, which was subsequently adjusted by his widow Smt. Madhu Rajput, the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal and that of Addl. Rent Controller were without jurisdiction. He has further contended that he is willing to pay if there was any default even today in Court and this Court has got ample power to condone the delay in making payment of the rent. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Ram Murty Vs. Bhola Nath & Anr. . Mr. Bhargava has also contended that the amount stood paid even if the rent was not paid and the Addl. Rent Controller ought to have given him an opportunity to make good the deficiency in payment of arrears rent in view of Ms. Santosh Mehta Vs. Om Prakash & Ors. 1980(2) RCR 516. Mr. Bhargava has contended that as a matter of fact no default was committed by the petitioner in payment of arrears of rent.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. An order under Section 15(1) of the petitioner to pay or deposit the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.9.1993 till last day of the previous month within one month of the date of order i.e. 1.11.1995 at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and to continue to pay future rent month by month at the same rate was made by the Addl. Rent Controller. Instead of complying with the said order, the petitioner filed an application taking the plea, which was hitherto neither taken by the petitioner in the written statement filed by the petitioner before the Addl. Rent Controller nor was brought to the notice of the Court while an order under Section 15(1) was passed by the Addl. Rent Controller that rent for the said period has been paid to Smt. Madhu Rajput. That application was decided on 23.11.1996. No appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order passed on 23.11.1996. Addl. Rent Controller in his order dated 7.1.1997 which was the order striking out the defense of the petitioner under Section 15(7) held as follows :

"...... it is essential to observe that vide order 23.11.1996 it was specificallly ordered that the prayer made by the respondent that he be allowed to continue to pay to Madhu Rajput the rent of Rs. 200/- p.m. was disallowed and the contention of the respond ent that the order dated 1.11.1995 be modified to the extent that the respondent be directed to pay the future rent to Madhu Rajput was also disallowed as it was held thereby the respondent only seeking review of the order dated 1.11.1995. It thus become apparent that it was for the respondent to comply with the order dated 1.11.1995 at least after the order dated 23.11.1996 which the respondent has not chosen to do till date and the same thus speaks volumes against the bona fides of the respondent....."

4. Taking into consideration the aforesaid observation of the Addl. Rent Controller, the Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The Rent Control Tribunal also took note that default in payment of arrears of rent from 1.9.1993 upto 28.2.1994 was neither admitted, nor pleaded having been paid to Madhu Rajput or to her husband R.C. Rajput was a deliberate, wilful and contumacious default and the Tribunal did not interfere with the reasoned order of the Addl. Rent Controller.

5. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I would not like to disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the courts below.

6. Dismissed.