Anand Kumar vs Naval Singh Thru L.R''S and Others

Indermeet Kaur, J.

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 u/s 14 (1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been dismissed and rightly so. 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.

Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord u/s 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/-.

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 u/s 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 u/s 14 (1)(a) stands established but since this was a case of first default, the benefit u/s 14 (2) of the DRCA was granted to the tenant; this was on 27.07.1999.

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.

Order u/s 15 (1) of the DRCA was passed on 30.08.2001.

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.

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 u/s 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. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.