Delhi High Court
Sada Ram vs Nirmal Singh on 18 April, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:18.04.2012
+ CM(M) 756/2011
SADA RAM ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma and Mr.
Ashok Jain, Advs.
versus
NIRMAL SINGH ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sarvagya Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 Impugned judgment is dated 06.04.2011 which was the judgment
passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) had allowed the appeal and
had reversed the finding returned by the Additional Rent Controller
(ARC) dated 17.08.2009.
2 Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by
the landlord Sada Ram seeking eviction of his tenant Nirmal Singh on
the ground under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act
(DRCA). It is not in dispute that in the first eviction petition which had
been filed by the landlord in the year 1996, vide order dated 10.12.1999
benefit of Section 14 (2) of the DRCA had been granted to the tenant.
Second eviction petition had been filed on 01.10.2004. The RCT had
dismissed this eviction petition holding that prior to filing of this
eviction petition, notice of demand for payment of arrears of rent had
not been served by the landlord upon the tenant. This is evident from the
record. Learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord has vehemently
submitted that the legal notice dated 12.01.2004 which had been sent by
him which was a reply-cum-notice was prior to filing of the eviction
petition and this has clearly made a demand for the arrears of rent.
Contents of this document i.e. notice dated 12.01.2004 have been
perused. No such demand has been made.
3 Provisions of section 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA are clear; before an
eviction petition can be entertained under Section 14 (1)(a) of the
DRCA, notice of demand has to be made by the landlord upon the tenant
calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent. It is only when there is non-
payment of rent within two months from the date of the notice can an
eviction petition be filed under Section 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA.
4 In a similar scenario, a Bench of this Court in CM (Misc) No.
416/1996 titled as NIzam Khan Vs. P.N. Sahiu decided on 04.08.2000
had noted that before filing a petition for eviction of a tenant on the
ground of non-payment of rent, the landlord is under an obligation to
serve upon him a notice of demand calling upon him to pay the rent due
within two months of the service of the notice of demand; this
requirement has to be strictly adhered to. In this case also, there was a
second eviction petition which had been filed by the landlord; being a
fresh petition the landlord was obliged to comply with the aforenoted
requirement including service upon the tenant of a notice of demand
claiming arrears of rent for three or more consecutive months; the
landlord could not be absolved of his duty under Section 14 (1)(a) of the
DRCA.
5 In this background, in the facts of the present case the impugned
judgment holding that this second eviction petition is liable to be
dismissed as there was no notice served by the landlord upon the tenant
calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent suffers from no infirmity.
6 Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon V
(2009) SLT 401 Sarla Goel & Others Vs. Kishan Chand is misplaced;
what has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not
a disputed proposition which merely enunciates the legal position that
the proviso to Section 14 (2) of the DRCA takes away the right of the
tenant of a benefit under Section 14 (2) if the tenant having obtained
such benefit once in respect of premises makes a further default in
payment of rent of those premises for three consecutive months where
the tenant would not be entitled to any protection.
7 Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
APRIL 18, 2012
A
