Delhi High Court
Narender Kaur & Anr. vs Sanjeev Sachdeva & Anr. on 9 July, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM (M) 752/2012
Date of Decision: 09th July, 2012
NARENDER KAUR & ANR. ...... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Amarjeet Singh Gambhir,
Adv.
Versus
...... Respondents
SANJEEV SACHDEVA & ANR.
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assails the
order dated 11.04.2012 of the District Judge-cum-ARCT whereby the
appeal against the order dated 23.4.2011 of the Additional Rent
Controller was dismissed.
2. The petitioners and the respondent No. 2 Amarjit Singh are the
tenants in the suit premises. A petition for the eviction under Section 14
(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') was filed by
the respondent no. 1 Sanjeev Sachdeva against the petitioners and the
respondent No. 2 on the averments that they had not paid the arrears of
rent despite the issue of demand notice. In the said case, an order under
Section 15(1) of the Act was passed directing them to pay the arrears of
rent w.e.f. 01.05.2004. Since they failed to comply the said order, the
defence of the respondents was struck off vide order dated 8.9.2010 of
the ARC on the application moved under Section 15(7) of the Act.
Ultimately, the eviction order was passed against them by the learned
ARC on 23.04.2011. The petitioners alone carried the matter in appeal
to the court of District Judge-cum-ARCT (West Delhi), who vide the
impugned order dismissed their appeal and thereby confirmed the order
of their eviction from the suit premises. This order of the ARCT is
under challenge in the present petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through
the records. From the judgment of the ARC and the impugned order of
the ARCT, it comes out to be an established fact that an order under
Section 15(1) was passed by the RCT against the petitioners and the
respondent No. 2 on 4.12.2007 directing them to deposit the arrears of
rent w.e.f. 1.5.2004 @ Rs. 55/- per month within one month and further
to continue to pay the rent at this rate month by month. The petitioners
and the respondent No. 2 having failed to comply with this order, their
defence was struck off vide order dated 8.9.2010 by the ARC. This was
not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It was also an
admitted fact that this order was never challenged by the petitioners and
the respondent No. 2 and same thus, got finality.
4. Both the courts below have returned the findings of facts as
regard to the payments of rent by the petitioners and the respondent No.
2 to the respondent No. 1 for the period with effect from January, 2003
to April, 2004 against receipts and that non-payment of rent by them
w.e.f. 1.5.2004 @ Rs. 55/- per month despite issue of notice of demand.
The fact that the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 had paid the rent
to the respondent No. 1 for some time would amount to their having
attorned the respondent No. 1 as a landlord, assuming that the letter of
attornment dated 08.03.2004 alleged to have been issued by erstwhile
owner to them was not received by them. It is settled law that where the
landlord alleges non-payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act,
the onus lies on the tenant to prove that he has paid the rent. No
illegality or infirmity could be pointed out or noticed in the impugned
order of the learned District Judge-cum-ARCT or that of the learned
ARC. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
JULY 09, 2012
akb
