Delhi High Court
Pradeep Kumar vs Pukmani Devi on 10 December, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM (M) 834/2012
Date of Decision: 10.12.2012
PRADEEP KUMAR ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Narendra, Advocate.
Versus
PUKMANI DEVI ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Nirmal Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed
against the judgment dated 28.4.2012 of ARCT, North-West, whereby
the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated
16.07.2011 of ARC, was dismissed.
2. The respondent had filed a petition of eviction on the ground of
non-payment of rent under Section 14(1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act (for short the 'Act') against the petitioner. The case of the
respondent was that the petitioner was in arrears of rent w.e.f.
22.12.2004. It was the plea of the petitioner that he had deposited the
demanded rent w.e.f. 1.12.2003 to 22.12.2004 under Section 27 of the
Act on 7.3.2005, and thus, the petition for his eviction was not
maintainable.
3. The learned ARC passed the order under Section 15(1) of the
Act on 1.9.2007, directing the petitioner to pay or deposit the arrears of
rent within a month. The petitioner having failed to comply the said
order, the respondent filed an application under Section 15(7) of the
Act. Vide order dated 13.03.2009, the defence of the petitioner was
struck off. The said order was challenged in the appeal, which came to
be dismissed by ARCT vide its order dated 16.4.2010. The petitioner
challenged this order before this court vide CM(M) 710/2010, which
also came to be dismissed on 24.5.2010. Ultimately, the petition was
put on trial and vide judgment dated 16.07.2011, the ARC declined to
give benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act, and consequently, passed
the eviction order. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before
ARCT, which came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment. The
same is under challenge in the instant petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had
complied the order under Section 15(1) of the Act by making a deposit
under Section 27 of the Act, and thus, the order under Section 15(7),
was not tenable.
5. This has already been observed by ARC as also ARCT that the
petitioner was in arrears of rent at the time of issue of notice and that
he had not paid or deposited the legally recoverable arrears of rent,
which were demanded vide the demand notice dated 22.12.2004. It is
also observed by both the courts below that the petitioner had been
claiming to have deposited the rent under Section 27 of the Act, but,
had failed to prove the same before the ARC. It was also observed that
in any case, the petition under Section 27 of the Act for deposit of rent
covering period 1.12.2003 to 31.1.2005 was dismissed for non-
prosecution on 20.09.2006. It was noted by the ARCT, and rightly so,
that the submission that was made before the ARC was that the rent
was deposited from 1.3.2004 to 31.1.2005 @ 237.50/- per month
whereas the rate of rent being Rs.360/- per month was not in dispute,
and thus, the deposit of rent, if any, @ Rs. 237.50/- per month was not
valid. On being asked to clarify, learned counsel for the petitioner
could not respond in this regard. In any case, when the petition under
Section 27 already stood dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.09.2006,
this argument that he had deposited, was a frivolous one.
6. The defence of the petitioner having been struck off on account
of non-compliance and the said order having attained finality upto this
court, the learned ARC rightly declined to grant benefit of Section
14(2) of the Act to the petitioner. This order was rightly upheld and
maintained by the ARCT. There being no infirmity or illegality in the
impugned orders of both the courts below, the petition has no merit and
stands dismissed in limine.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
DECEMBER 10, 2012
akb
