Kamla Alias Tahira Begum vs Budho Devi
2006 Latest Caselaw 392 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S.Sodhi, J

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 5.12.2005 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in RCA No. 74/2004, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal arising out of the judgment dated 29.5.2004 and order dated 10.9.2005, whereby the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent herein under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on account of petitioner herein having not paid the arrears of rent despite service of demand notice within two months.

2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi are as under :

The petitioner is stated to be the owner of the property bearing NO.758/02, Jheel Kuranja, Delhi by virtue of will executed in her favor The husband of the respondent was inducted as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs 180/- per month excluding electricity and water charges. The husband of the respondent died, and the respondent was treated as tenant in the property in question being his wife, After the death of the husband of respondent, the respondent now has become a defaulter in making the payment of monthly rent and has not paid the rent since June, 1983 and the petitioner has been left with no alternative but to send a legal notice of demand dated 14.7.87, which is duly received by the respondent, but neither any reply nor payment was given. The petitioner thereafter again send a notice dated 30.1.88, which is also received by the respondent and after receipt of the same, the respondent verbally requested that she will pay the rent shortly, but despite repeated requests and demands notice, she failed to pay the arrears hence the petitioner was constrained to send another legal notice on 14.1.96 by UPC but no reply of the same was given by the respondent. The petitioner states that he send notice dated 14.7.87,30.1.88 and 4.1.96 to the respondent, despite which she has not made the payment of arrears, hence, the petitioner requested that the eviction order be passed in respect of two rooms and one tin shed shown red in the site plan in respect of property bearing no. 758/2, Jheel Kuranja, Delhi.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and have perused the order under challenge. There are concurrent finding of facts of the two courts below. I find no grounds to interfere.

4. CM(M) 427/2006 and CM APPL. 3080/2006 are dismissed.