Munan Khan vs Ganga Prasad Saini Decd Thr Lrs
2012 Latest Caselaw 947 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Date of Judgment: 10.02.2012.

+     CM(M) No. 166/2012 & CM Nos.2548-49/2012


MUNAN KHAN                                                ..... Petitioner
                              Through    Mr. M.K. Gautam, Adv.

                     versus

GANGA PRASAD SAINI DECD THR LRS                     ..... Respondents
                 Through  None.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent

Control Tribunal (RCT) dated 21.11.2011 which has endorsed the

finding of the trial Judge dated 17.08.2010 whereby the application filed

by the defendant under Section 15 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act

(DRCA) had been allowed and the defence of the defendant had been

struck off.

2 Record shows that the present eviction has been filed under

Section 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA; it is not in dispute that the first

application had been filed by the landlord under Section 15 (7) of the

DRCA on 24.01.2003; contention was that the tenant was in arrears of

rent w.e.f. 13.03.1999 amounting to `21,560/- which have not been

paid; thereafter this application was withdrawn on 27.04.2010. A second

application under Section 15 (7) of the DRCA was filed on 29.04.2010;

the averment in this application was that the rent has not been paid by

the defendant w.e.f. October, 2005. This position is not in dispute.

Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes even before this Court that

admittedly rent had not been paid by him w.e.f. October, 2005. His

contention is that the tenant was not well and in fact medical documents

supporting this submission had been filed by him before the trial Court.

Certified copy of those documents have not been filed but even

presuming that certain documents relating to the medical condition of

the petitioner have been placed on record in the trial Court (not

deciphered from the record), even otherwise these documents only show

the payment of certain amounts i.e. amounting to `22 and about `2,000/-

have been paid as payment for medicines purchased from St. Stephen

Hospital qua the present petitioner; what is the sickness suffered by the

petitioner has not been detailed and even on specific query put to the

learned counsel for the petitioner today he has no answer; there is

nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was so sick that he could

not deposit the rent w.e.f. October, 2005 for which a second application

under Section 15 (7) of the DRCA had to be filed by the landlord on

29.04.2010.

3 All these facts were correctly noted by the ARC who had in these

circumstances struck off the defence of the defendant. The RCT had

endorsed this finding. Record further shows that the order of the ARC is

dated 17.08.2010; this order was passed on an application filed by the

landlord on 29.04.2010; there was an intervening gap of more than four

months; what prevented the tenant from paying the arrears of rent at this

stage has also not been answered; the medical documents filed on record

pertain to September, 2008 which would not suffice to explain the

default committed by the petitioner in non-payment of rent right from

October, 2005 and for which a specific application seeking striking off

the defence of the tenant had been filed in April, 2010. Even from April,

2010 up to 17.08.2010, the tenant did not think it fit to pay up the

arrears of rent. It was in these circumstance, because of the continuous

defaults made by the petitioner that the RCT had rightly noted that the

non-compliance of the order under Section 15 (1) of the Act was willful

and contumacious; there was a gap of more than 6- ½ years since the

last paid rent.

4 The provisions of the DRCA provide a protection to the tenant but

the tenant who wants to avail of this protective umbrella must comply

with the directions contained in the legislation; eviction decree under

Section 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA will follow only in case of a second

default. The impugned order also notes that even before the Tribunal,

the petitioner has admitted that he has not deposited the rent after July,

2005; even before this Court this position is reiterated and there is no

explanation whatsoever for the default which should be construed as

nothing but willful, voluntary and contumacious. The impugned order

decreeing the eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA in

this factual scenario suffers from no infirmity.

5      Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.




                                              INDERMEET KAUR, J
FEBRUARY 10, 2012
A