Narender Kaur and Another vs Sanjeev Sachdeva and Another

M.L. Mehta, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assails the order dated 11.04.2012 of the District Judge-cum-ARCT whereby the appeal against the order dated 23.4.2011 of the Additional Rent Controller was dismissed. The petitioners and the respondent No. 2 Amarjit Singh are the tenants in the suit premises. A petition for the eviction u/s 14 (1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the ''Act'') was filed by the respondent no. 1 Sanjeev Sachdeva against the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 on the averments that they had not paid the arrears of rent despite the issue of demand notice. In the said case, an order u/s 15(1) of the Act was passed directing them to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.05.2004. Since they failed to comply the said order, the defence of the respondents was struck off vide order dated 8.9.2010 of the ARC on the application moved u/s 15(7) of the Act. Ultimately, the eviction order was passed against them by the learned ARC on 23.04.2011. The petitioners alone carried the matter in appeal to the court of District Judge-cum-ARCT (West Delhi), who vide the impugned order dismissed their appeal and thereby confirmed the order of their eviction from the suit premises. This order of the ARCT is under challenge in the present petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records. From the judgment of the ARC and the impugned order of the ARCT, it comes out to be an established fact that an order u/s 15(1) was passed by the RCT against the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 on 4.12.2007 directing them to deposit the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.5.2004 @ Rs. 55/- per month within one month and further to continue to pay the rent at this rate month by month. The petitioners and the respondent No. 2 having failed to comply with this order, their defence was struck off vide order dated 8.9.2010 by the ARC. This was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It was also an admitted fact that this order was never challenged by the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 and same thus, got finality. Both the courts below have returned the findings of facts as regard to the payments of rent by the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 1 for the period with effect from January, 2003 to April, 2004 against receipts and that non-payment of rent by them w.e.f. 1.5.2004 @ Rs. 55/- per month despite issue of notice of demand. The fact that the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 had paid the rent to the respondent No. 1 for some time would amount to their having attorned the respondent No. 1 as a landlord, assuming that the letter of attornment dated 08.03.2004 alleged to have been issued by erstwhile owner to them was not received by them. It is settled law that where the landlord alleges non-payment of rent u/s 14(1)(a) of the Act, the onus lies on the tenant to prove that he has paid the rent. No illegality or infirmity could be pointed out or noticed in the impugned order of the learned District Judge-cum-ARCT or that of the learned ARC. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.