Life Insurance Corporation of India vs M/s. Shrishti Properties P. Ltd.

Indermeet Kaur, J.—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 u/s 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed. 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.

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.

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 Rs. 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.

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 In Re: Ms. Neera Raina Bhagat, 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 unencashed 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 u/s 27 of the DRCA but he did not chose to do so.

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.

Eviction petition had been filed on 21.08.2002; on 17.09.2007, the ARC had passed an order u/s 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 u/s 14(1)(a) is the necessary corollary. 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.