Hari Chand Grover vs Girdhari Lal Sachdeva & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 1612 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                          Date of Reserve: February 11, 2010
                                              Date of Order: March 22, 2010

+ CM(M)1065/2005
%                                                          22.03.2010
     Girdhari Lal Sachdeva & Anr.                   ...Petitioners
     Through: Mr. Sudhanshu Batra and Mr. Bhuvan Gugnani, Advocates

        Versus

        Hari Chand Grover                                 ...Respondent
        Through: Mr. Pramod Ahuja, Advocate


+ CM(M)1055/2005
%
     Hari Chand Grover                                    ... Petitioners
     Through: Mr. Pramod Gupta, Advocate

        Versus

        Girdhari Lal Sachdeva & Anr.                   ...Respondent
        Through: Mr. Sudhanshu Batra and Mr. Bhuvan Gugnani, Advocates


        JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.      Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.      Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


        JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against an order dated 5th April, 2005 of learned RCT

whereby learned RCT ordered for deposit of rent of the premises in question

for the disputed period @ Rs.1,000/- per month including the period of August

2002 to January, 2003 (the tenant was saying that the rent was @ Rs.200/-

per month) but did not allow the petitioner to withdraw this rent and stated

that this rent shall remain deposited in the Court.

CM(M)Nos. 1055 and 1065 of 2005 Page 1 Of 2

2. I think that the purpose of Section 15(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act is

that the landlord should not be deprived of the rent/ user charges when the

tenant was in occupation of the premises during the pendency of

proceedings. If this amount remained deposited with the Court, practically the

purpose of Section 15(1) of DRC Act stands defeated.

3. I, therefore, consider that it would be appropriate that the learned ARC

should release the rent in favour of petitioner herein, on petitioner's giving an

undertaking to the RC /ARC that in case the Court arrived at a conclusion that

this amount was to be paid back, the petitioner shall pay back the amount to

the respondent with interest @ 7% per annum.

4. With above directions, both the petitions stand disposed of.

March 22, 2010                                SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




CM(M)Nos. 1055 and 1065 of 2005                                   Page 2 Of 2