Munan Khan vs Ganga Prasad Saini Decd Thr L.Rs.

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) dated 21.11.2011 which has endorsed the finding of the trial Judge dated 17.08.2010 whereby the application filed by the defendant u/s 15 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been allowed and the defence of the defendant had been struck off. Record shows that the present eviction has been filed u/s 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA; it is not in dispute that the first application had been filed by the landlord u/s 15 (7) of the DRCA on 24.01.2003; contention was that the tenant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 13.03.1999 amounting to Rs. 21,560/- which have not been paid; thereafter this application was withdrawn on 27.04.2010. A second application u/s 15 (7) of the DRCA was filed on 29.04.2010; the averment in this application was that the rent has not been paid by the defendant w.e.f. October, 2005. This position is not in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes even before this Court that admittedly rent had not been paid by him w.e.f. October, 2005. His contention is that the tenant was not well and in fact medical documents supporting this submission had been filed by him before the trial Court. Certified copy of those documents have not been filed but even presuming that certain documents relating to the medical condition of the petitioner have been placed on record in the trial Court (not deciphered from the record), even otherwise these documents only show the payment of certain amounts i.e. amounting to Rs. 22 and about Rs. 2,000/- have been paid as payment for medicines purchased from St. Stephen Hospital qua the present petitioner; what is the sickness suffered by the petitioner has not been detailed and even on specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner today he has no answer; there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was so sick that he could not deposit the rent w.e.f. October, 2005 for which a second application u/s 15 (7) of the DRCA had to be filed by the landlord on 29.04.2010.

All these facts were correctly noted by the ARC who had in these circumstances struck off the defence of the defendant. The RCT had endorsed this finding. Record further shows that the order of the ARC is dated 17.08.2010; this order was passed on an application filed by the landlord on 29.04.2010; there was an intervening gap of more than four months; what prevented the tenant from paying the arrears of rent at this stage has also not been answered; the medical documents filed on record pertain to September, 2008 which would not suffice to explain the default committed by the petitioner in non-payment of rent right from October, 2005 and for which a specific application seeking striking off the defence of the tenant had been filed in April, 2010. Even from April, 2010 up to 17.08.2010, the tenant did not think it fit to pay up the arrears of rent. It was in these circumstance, because of the continuous defaults made by the petitioner that the RCT had rightly noted that the non-compliance of the order u/s 15 (1) of the Act was willful and contumacious; there was a gap of more than 6- 1/2 years since the last paid rent.

The provisions of the DRCA provide a protection to the tenant but the tenant who wants to avail of this protective umbrella must comply with the directions contained in the legislation; eviction decree u/s 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA will follow only in case of a second default. The impugned order also notes that even before the Tribunal, the petitioner has admitted that he has not deposited the rent after July, 2005; even before this Court this position is reiterated and there is no explanation whatsoever for the default which should be construed as nothing but willful, voluntary and contumacious. The impugned order decreeing the eviction petition u/s 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA in this factual scenario suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.