Anand Kumar vs Naval Singh Thru L.Rs & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 3124 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                   Date of Judgment:10.05.2012

+     CM(M) 773/2007 & CM No. 7658/2007

      ANAND KUMAR                                     ..... Petitioner
                               Through   Mr. Rana Ranjit Singh, Adv.
                      versus

      NAVAL SINGH THRU L.R'S & ORS.        ..... Respondents
                   Through   Mr. Alok Sharma, Adv.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The impugned judgment is dated 03.04.2007 passed the Rent

Control Tribunal (RCT) endorsing the finding of the Additional Rent

Controller (ARC) dated 21.11.2005 whereby the eviction petition filed

by the landlord Naval Singh seeking eviction of his tenant Anand

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

had been dismissed and rightly so.

2 This court is sitting under the powers of superintendence under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India; it is conscious of the fact that

the provision of Section 39 which is the right of second appeal has since

been abrogated and powers of superintendence of the High Court are not

the substitute powers of an appellate forum. This court being not a fact

finding court it cannot re-examine these fact findings returned by the

RCT which are based on an appreciation of the evidence of the parties.

3 Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by

the landlord under Section 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA seeking eviction of

the tenant for non-payment of arrears of rent from the property bearing

No. WZ 152-153, village Madipur, Delhi which had been rented out at a

monthly rent of Rs.300/- and thereafter with a statutory increase, the

rent had been enhanced from Rs.300/- to Rs.330/-.

4 Record reveals that an eviction petition being EP No. 35/1996 had

been filed by the landlord on 26.09.1996; prior thereto a legal notice

dated 10.11.1995 had been served upon the tenant. Orders under Section

15 (1) of the DRCA had been passed on 19.12.1996. Thereafter after the

evidence had been led, the ARC had returned a finding that the ground

under Section 14 (1)(a) stands established but since this was a case of

first default, the benefit under Section 14 (2) of the DRCA was granted

to the tenant; this was on 27.07.1999.

5 Second eviction petition being EP No. 92/2000 was filed on

03.07.2000; prior thereto a legal notice dated 17.12.1999 had been

issued to the tenant; contention of the landlord was that the tenant was in

arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.05.1999. This was a composite notice asking the

tenant to pay the arrears of rent as also the submission of the landlord

was to the effect that the rent stood enhanced to Rs.330/- per month.

6 Order under Section 15 (1) of the DRCA was passed on

30.08.2001.

7 The tenant in his written statement had taken up a plea that he had

deposited the rent after 01.05.1999 and no arrears were due from him.

8 Oral and documentary evidence was led. The ARC had correctly

noted that neither in the written statement and nor in the affidavit by

way of evidence filed by the tenant, the rent receipts or challans were

placed on record to substantiate the submission of the tenant that he had

paid rent to the landlord w.e.f. 01.05.1999. The tenant had also not

specifically denied that he is not in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.05.1999; he

had stated that up to date rent was paid but how this rent was paid and

when it was paid was never been explained; no evidence on this score

was led by the tenant at any point. It was incumbent upon the tenant to

have proved the challans in the course of evidence when opportunity

was granted to him for the said purpose but he chose for reasons best

known to him not to depose all these facts. The same could not be

proved in law as the challans/deposit vouchers were never produced in

the Court at the relevant time. There is also no dispute that the legal

notice dated 17.12.1999 had been served upon the tenant; presumption

under Section 27 of the DRCA was also drawn; even otherwise this

factum is not disputed before this Court today. Vide this legal notice, the

entire arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.05.1999 was directed to be paid by the

tenant but as noted supra payment of this rent could not be proved by the

tenant. This finding of the ARC was up-held by the RCT. It can in no

manner, be said that the fact finding of the two courts below are

perverse. The impugned judgment endorsing the finding of the ARC and

decreeing the eviction petition in this background suffers from no

infirmity.

9     Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.



                                              INDERMEET KAUR, J
MAY 10, 2012
A