Smt Sunita Chauhan @ Gayatri Devi vs Shri Virender Singh Gusain
2014 Latest Caselaw 4242 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+
            C.M.(M) No.50/2014 and C.M.No.909/2014 (stay)

%                                                  08th September, 2014

SMT SUNITA CHAUHAN @ GAYATRI DEVI                             ......Petitioner
                 Through: None

                          VERSUS

SHRI VIRENDER SINGH GUSAIN                                  ...... Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. Challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is to the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent

Control Tribunal dated 20.11.2013 which has dismissed the first appeal filed

under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to

as 'the Act'). The first appeal was filed against the order of the Additional

Rent Controller dated 27.9.2013 refusing to restore the dismissed in default

Deposit of Rent Petitions filed under Section 27 of the Act. The reasons for

refusing to set aside the dismissed in default petitions are that the

applications under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(CPC) lacked bonafides and were also time barred.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/landlord had filed an

eviction petition for non-payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act,

which has been decreed by the Additional Rent Controller on 30.10.2010.

Subsequently, the Additional Rent Controller passed an order dated

08.5.2012 declining benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act against eviction

on the ground that there was default in compliance of the order of deposit of

rent under Section 15(1) of the Act. The order dated 08.5.2012 was

challenged in a first appeal and the same was set aside by the Additional

Rent Control Tribunal by its judgment dated 08.4.2013 and the matter was

remanded back to the Additional Rent Controller to decide the issue of

benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act afresh vide judgment dated

02.05.2013.

3. By Deposit of Rent (DR) petitions filed under Section 27 of the Act,

the petitioner was seeking to deposit rent from 01.1.2011 onwards and which

has been held to be a malafide act because the eviction petition under

Section 14(1)(a) of the Act was already decided on 30.10.2010 wherein only

the amount had to be deposited under Section 15(1) of the Act. Obviously,

the DR petitions under Section 27 of the Act for the period from 01.1.2011

were misconceived and malafide because actually the rent was to be

deposited before the Additional Rent Controller under Section 15(1) of the

Act wherein the petitions under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act were pending.

Also, there is a limitation period provided for deposit of rent under Section

27 of the Act vide Section 28 of the Act and which is that the rent for a

particular month has to be deposited maximum by the end of the first week

of the next calendar month for which the rent is to be paid and which period

had expired at the time of filing of DR petitions, and also the period of one

month from passing of the judgment on 30.10.2010 had expired during

which the rent had to be deposited.

4. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be

exercised as a routine, especially qua the petitions under Delhi Rent Control

Act, 1958 because the provision of second appeal being Section 39 of the

Act was repealed by the Act 57 of 1988.

5. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition, and the same is

therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

SEPTEMBER 08, 2014/KA                          VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J