Delhi High Court
Mohd. Azhar vs Tabrej Alam on 20 July, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M. (M) No. 814/2012
Date of Decision:20.07 .2012
Mohd. Azhar ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Irshad Hanif, Advocate.
Versus
Tabrej Alam ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 08.05.2012 whereby
the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order of Additional
Rent Controller dated 29.08.2011 was dismissed.
2. The petitioner filed eviction petition against the respondent U/s 14
(1) (a) Delhi Rent Control Act (in short Act) against the respondent in
respect of flat No. H-204, Taj Sartaj Group Cooperative Housing
Society alleging that the respondent was his tenant in respect of suit
premises @ Rs.3000/- per month and that he was irregular and habitual
defaulter in payment of rent since 1.9.1999. A notice of demand dated
24.10.2007 was stated to have been served upon the respondent/tenant,
but he did not pay the rent despite service.
3. In the written statement filed by the respondent, he denied receipt
of any demand notice. He also denied that the rent of the suit premises
was Rs.3000/- per month. The rent of the suit premises was stated to be
800 per month. It was denied that he was in arrears of rent or that he
was defaulter as alleged. It was averred that he had tendered the whole
recoverable rent in the month of August, 1999, but since the petitioner
refused to accept the same, he deposited the rent for the month of
August, 1999 in the court U/s 27 of the Act. He averred having paid the
rent up to August, 2007, without any receipt issued by the petitioner.
4. An order U/s 15 (1) DRC Act was passed on 17.10.2008 by the
ARC directing the respondent to pay the arrears at Rs.800/- per month
w.e.f. November, 2007 and also further rent at this rate by the 15 th day
of each succeeding month. After recording the evidence of both the
parties, the learned ARC recorded a finding of fact that the rent of the
suit premises was Rs.800/- per month and the same had not been paid by
the respondent since 1.9.1999. It was observed that since the petition
which was filed on 3.3.2008, order U/s 15 (1) DRC Act passed on
17.10.2008 was modified directing the respondent to pay the arrears of
rent preceding to three years from the date of filing of the petition i.e.
w.e.f. 1.3.2005 @ Rs.800/- till date after adjusting the amounts already
paid by him. This order was carried in appeal by the petitioner/landlord.
The appeal came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated
8.5.2012. This order of the appellate court as also that of the ARC have
been assailed in the instant petition.
5. The main ground that has been pressed is that the rent of the suit
premises was Rs.3000/- per month and not Rs.800/- per month . In this
regard reference was sought to be made to the testimony of PW 2
examined before the learned ARC. This witness PW 2 claimed to be the
honorary Secretary of the Society, but he produced nothing on record to
show himself to be the Secretary of the Society. His testimony was not
relied upon by the learned ARC as he did not know the number of the
flat which he stated he was owning and had sold. He had only made a
vague statement about the prevailing rent in the Society flats during the
period when he was a member. The petitioner was claiming the rent of
the premises being Rs.3000/- per month merely on the assumed market
rent of the flats in the area, based on the testimony of PW2. He could
not bring any evidence on record to substantiate the rent of the suit
premises to be Rs.3000/- per month. So much so, even the respondent
was not suggested the rent of the suit premises to be Rs.3000/- per
month against his specific statement regarding the rent to be Rs.800/-
per month. Both the courts below have recorded finding of fact
regarding the rent of the said premises to be Rs.800/- per month and I do
not seen any reason to interfere or disturb the finding of fact. I do not
see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
The petition has no merit and is dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
JULY 20 , 2012
pkv
