Life Insurance Corporation Of ... vs M/S. Shrishti Properties P.Ltd
2012 Latest Caselaw 2936 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 03.5.2012


+     CM(M) No. 328/2008 and CM No. 3696/2008



LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA          ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr.Mohinder Singh, Advocate.

                      versus

M/S. SHRISHTI PROPERTIES P.LTD.                         ..... Respondent
                   Through: None.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. Impugned judgment is dated 13.11.2007. The Additional Rent

Control Tribunal (ARCT) had endorsed the finding of the Additional

Rent Controller (ARC) dated 17.09.2007 wherein the eviction petition

filed by the landlord M/s. Shrishti Properties Pvt. Ltd. seeking eviction

of the tenant i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India on the ground

under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been

decreed.

2. Briefly stated the facts as emanated from the record are that the

landlord is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act; it

is the owner of the first floor of property bearing No. 44, Janpath, New

Delhi having purchased it from its previous owner vide a registered

document dated 25.09.1996. The petitioner had called upon

respondent/tenant to pay up the arrears of rent; demand notice dated

24.03.2001 and thereafter a subsequent notice dated 29.01.2002 had

been sent to the tenant but neither was the rent tendered or paid.

Eviction petition was accordingly filed.

3. In the written statement the contention of the tenant was that the

petitioners are not the owners of the suit premises; they had taken

premises from M/s. Bassumull Jagat Narain on 01.12.1955 and after

nationalization in the year 1956 the premises had now come to the

respondent. In 1971, Sh. Vijay Narain and Sh. Virender Narain informed

the owner about their ownership; Mr. Narender Kumar had been

appointed as a General Attorney and he was receiving rent from the

tenant on behalf of the owners. In fact after receipt of the legal notice

dated 24.03.2001, tenant had requested the petitioners to send them

documents relating to title and only then they would be able to tender

the rent to them; further contention being that after the receipt of legal

notice dated 29.01.2002, the tenant had on 15.02.20002 that is within

two months of the receipt of this notice tendered the entire rent w.e.f.

01.01.1999 to 28.02.2002 through cheque.

4. Oral and documentary evidence was led. There was no substantial

dispute about the status of the petitioners as landlords. The sale deed

proving ownership of the present petitioners has been proved as Ex.

AW1/4. The rate of rent between the parties is also admitted which is

stated to be ` 286 per month; contention of the landlord was that the

tenant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.1999; submission being that

rent has been paid only up 31.12.1998; the receipt of both legal notices

has not been disputed; in fact the tenant has submitted that after the

receipt of the second legal notice dated 29.01.2002 rent has been

tendered within two months thereafter.

5. The first legal notice dated 24.03.2001 is Ex. AW1/8 to which a

reply Ex.AW2/10 was sent. The second legal notice is Ex. AW1/14.

Record shows that after the receipt of first demand notice which is dated

24.03.2001, no rent had been tendered and as such tenant had clearly

committed a default in terms of Section 14(1)(a) of the DRCA. Even as

per the case of the tenant; he has paid rent only after the receipt of

second demand notice. Testimony of RW1 and RW2 is also relevant in

this context. RW1 was an assistant of the respondent Company; his

contention was that from 01.12.1991 up to March 2001 rent was paid by

the tenant to Narender Kumar Bafna attorney of the previous owner;

after the receipt of the legal notice dated 24.03.2001, landlord had been

asked to furnish documents of ownership which they did not furnish; it

was only after the receipt of the second legal notice that the

respondent/tenant had thereafter tendered a sum of Rs.10,868/- to the

landlord which was for a rent for a period from 01.01.1999 to

28.02.2002; although admittedly no rent was tendered in pursuance of

the first legal notice which is a valid legal notice. Even after the second

legal notice the entire arrears of rent had not been paid. Submission of

the petitioner/tenant that there was a waiver of the first legal notice is

clearly a misdirected submission and reliance by the learned counsel for

the petitioner upon the judgments reported in 113(2004) DLT 57

Ms.Neera Raina Bhagat Vs. Dr. D.P.Singh and 1992 RLR 496 Anand

Prakash Vs. Gian Chand Swara is also misplaced. In the first case the

court had noted that the acceptance of rent from the tenant in certain

circumstances would create a fresh tenancy; there must be an intention

on the part of the lessor to treat the lease as subsisting amounting to a

waiver of the first notice. This ratio is wholly inapplicable; so also the

judgment of Anand Prakash (supra) wherein it was noted that when the

landlord had died and after his death his legal heirs gave a fresh notice

terminating the tenancy the first notice got waived. This submission of

the petitioner is wholly ill-founded. Contention of the tenant was that

rent from March to September 2002 was sent by a cheque; this does not

amount to a legal and valid tender as tenant was well aware of the fact

that his cheques were un-encashed yet he continued to pay by the same

mode. In case the rent was not received by the landlord, the incumbent

duty of the tenant was to deposit the rent before the ARC under Section

27 of the DRCA but he did not chose to do so.

6. RW2 who was working in the Dispatch Section of the Postal

Department had come into the witness box but his testimony also

shows that the rent was sent on 15.02.2002 but what was the fate of that

sending has not been explained; in these circumstances, both the courts

below have returned a correct fact finding that this was not a valid

tender of rent.

7. Eviction petition had been filed on 21.08.2002; on 17.09.2007,

the ARC had passed an order under Section 15(1) of the DRCA

directing the tenant to deposit entire arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.03.1998 @

Rs.286 per month till 31.08.2007 along with simple interest @ 15 % for

delayed payments giving him the benefit of amount already deposited.

This order has not been complied. Eviction order under Section 14(1)(a)

is the necessary corollary.

8. The RCT vide impugned judgment dated 13.11.2007 endorsing

this finding of the ARC has committed no illegality. Petition is without

any merit. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J

MAY 03, 2012 nandan