BASANT LAL  Vs NIRMLA DAWAR & ORS.

CM(M) 72/2021 & 74/2021 Page 1
$~32 & 34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 29.01.2021

+ CM(M) 72/2021 & CM APPL s. 3126/2021 & 3127/2021
BASANT LAL ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.B. Trivedi & Mr.Saurabh
Sachdeva, Advs.
versus
NIRMLA DAWAR & ORS. ….. Respondent s
Through: None.

(34) CM(M) 74/2021 & CM APPL s. 3233/2021 & 3234/2021
BASANT LAL ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.B. Trivedi & Mr.Saurabh
Sachdeva, Advs.
versus
SMT NIRMLA DAWAR & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: None.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

NAVIN CHAWLA , J. (Oral)

1. These petitions have been filed challenging the common
judgment/order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the learned Rent Control
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RCT’) in RCT No. 56/2016
and 57/2016 , dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner herein and
ordering his eviction from the tenanted premises being shop No. J-71,
Milap Market , Hari Nagar, New Delhi .
2. The Eviction Petition was filed by the respondents , being th e
legal representative s of the erstwhile landlord Shri Kesho Ram , against
the petitioner under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act ,
2021:DHC:341
CM(M) 72/2021 & 74/2021 Page 2
1958 (‘Act’), claiming therein that the petitioner had defaulted in
tendering the payment of the rent with effect from 01.06.2005 and had
not pai d or tendered the same in spite of service of statutory notice
dated 08.11.2007.
3. By the order dated 03.09.2015 , the learned Additional Rent
Controller, West District, Tis Hazari Courts (hereinafter referred to as
ARC) was pleased to allow the said petition against the petitioner ,
directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent with effect from
01.06.2005 and cont inue to pay the same on a month -to-month basis at
the rate of Rs. 400/ – per month. The case was thereafter li sted on
07.11.2015 for considering compliance of the interim order dated
10.09.2010 passed under Section 15(1) of the Act and to consider
whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit under Section 14(2)
of the Act.
4. By the subsequent order dated 0 2.08.2016 , the learned
Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ARC’) was
pleased to deny the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act to the petitioner
for having committed default in payment of rent in terms of the order
dated 03.09.2015.
5. The orders dated 03.09.2015 and 02.08.2016 were challenged
by the petitioner by way of the above appeals, which have been
dismissed by the learned RCT .
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
RCT has erred in not appreciating that the rate of rent for the premises
2021:DHC:341
CM(M) 72/2021 & 74/2021 Page 3
was only Rs. 300/ – per month and not Rs. 400/ – as has been held by
the learned ARC . He submits that the learned ARC has placed reliance
on the counterfoil of the rent receipt s for the month s of April and
May, 2005 to hold that the rent stood increased to Rs. 400/ – per month.
Infact , it is the case of the petitioner that this counterfoil was signed in
blank by the petitioner and had been later filled up by the respondents
to show the enhance d rent.
7. He further submi ts that there was no default in payment of the
agreed rent of Rs. 300/ – per month by the petitioner. Infact , inspite of
the payment of rent, it is the respondent s who had failed to issue the
receipt s. He submits that as the petitioner had been a tenant in the
tenanted premises since 1976 and had good relations with Kesho Ram
as also the respondents , he had no occasion to doubt the bona fide of
the respondent s and had never insisted upon the rent receipt. He
further submits that the very fact that the respon dents never demanded
this rent for a period of more than two years shows that the case set up
by the respondents was false , as no landlord would not initiate any
action or even demand the rent, if not paid, by the tenant for such a
long period .
8. As far as the statutory notice dated 08.11.2007 is concerned, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same was
admittedly not served on the petitioner and had been returned
unserved. The respondents were well aware of the residential address
of th e petitioner, however, made no effort s to serve the petitioner at
the said address. He submits that as the petition had been filed without
2021:DHC:341
CM(M) 72/2021 & 74/2021 Page 4
the service of the statutory notice of the petition , the petition was not
maintainable.
9. As far as the denial of t he benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act is
concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had suffered a paralytic attack because of which there was a
default of a few months in complying with the direction contained in
the or der dated 03.09.2015. The said default , being for bona fide
reasons, could and should have been condoned by the learned ARC
and therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of protection
provided under Section 14(2) of the Act.
10. I have consid ered the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner , however, find no merit in the same. At the outset , it
is to be noted that this Court is not exercising its jurisdiction as an
Appellate Court and therefore, must confine its scrutiny to t he
jurisdictional error or substantial error on the face of the record, if any,
made by the learned ARC or the learned RCT . All submissions made
by the petitioner infact , call upon this Court to exercise its jurisdiction
as if sitting as an Appellate Court , to re -appreciate the evidence and
come to its own conclusion thereon. This is clearly impermissible.
11. Even otherwise, as far as the submission of the petitioner on the
amount of rent is concerned, the learned ARC a s also the learned RCT
have disbeli eved the case set up by the petitioner of having signed the
counterfoil of the rent receipt s in blank. I do not see any reason to
interfere with this finding.
2021:DHC:341
CM(M) 72/2021 & 74/2021 Page 5
12. The plea of the petitioner that the petitioner had been regularly
making payment of the rent , however, it is the respondent s who
refused to issue rent receipt of the same, again cannot be accepted.
The learned ARC as also the learned RCT have rightly negated this
plea r elying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Goel &
Ors. vs. Kishan Chand , (2009 ) 7 SCC 658 wherein the Supreme Court
has held that in such circumstances the tenant must take recourse to
Section 27 of the Act , failing which the case set up by the tenant
cannot be accepted.
13. As far as the service of notice is concerned, as held by the
learned ARC and learned RCT, the notice was sent at the correct
address by way of registered post. Both the Courts have rightly relied
upon the presumption of service as contained in Section 114 of the
Indian Evidence Act , 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act,
1897 . The plea of the petitioner that the respondent s should have made
an effort to serve the petitioner at his residential address also, cannot
be accepted.
14. As far as the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act is concerned ,
the learned ARC in his order dat ed 03.09.2015 granted one month’s
time to clear the arrears of rent. Admittedly , the petitioner failed to do
so and as recorded in the Impugned Order , paid a partial sum on
01.02.2016 and the remaining only on 05.07.2016. The learned RCT ,
while upholding the rejection of the benefit under Section 14(2) to the
petitioner , has observed as under: –
2021:DHC:341
CM(M) 72/2021 & 74/2021 Page 6
“19. Coming to the subsequent impugned order dated
02.08.2016, admittedly the appellant / tenant had made belated
payment of arrea rs of rent in terms of order passed u /s 15 (1)
of the DRC Act on 03.09.2015 whic h should have been
deposited by 22.10.2015 but it was deposited almost after 31/2
months i.e. partly on 01.02.2016 and then after about nine
months, the remaining balance was paid on 05.07.2016.
Admittedly no application for condonation of delay for making
such deposits on medical grounds was filed before the Ld.
CCJ-cum-ARC (West), THC, Delhi.
20. Ms. Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for the appellant / tenant has
referred to the medica l documents placed on the record to
substantiate that the appellant/tenant had genuine and
compelling medical reasons thereby failing to make deposit of
rent within the stipulated time. The Spiral CT Scan report
dated 19.02.2015 is placed on record whereby the appellant
was diagnosed with “heamatoma in right basal ganglion”.
There are then the reports with regard to the LIPID profile,
blood sugar and urine sugar that make out no case of any
serious ailment afflicting the appellant / tenant. Another
document is from Khetarpal Neurodiagnostic Centre dated
19.02.2015, 31.03.2015 and 06.11.2015 which reiterate that
the appellant / tenant had been suffering from heamatoma in
right basal ganglion experiencing weakness and the left face
under some kind of paralytic seizure or attack. I do not see as
to how the documents placed on the record make out a
compelling and irrefutable evidence of any serious medical
ailment afflicting the appellant / tenant.
21. Ms. Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel has relied on decision in
Kamla De vi v. Vasdev (1995) 1 SCC 356. There is no quarrel
with the proposition of law that the Rent Controller has wide
powers to extend time prescribed u /s 15 (1) of the DRC Act for
payment of arrears of rent or future rent. In other words, Rent
Controller is ve sted with a lot of discretion but at the same time
such discretion can only be exercised if justifiable grounds are
shown. At the cost of repetition, non -exist. A simple bald
2021:DHC:341
CM(M) 72/2021 & 74/2021 Page 7
assertion that the appellant was suffering from serious medical
ailment cannot be accepted on its face value. ”

15. The Supreme Court in Aero Traders (P) Ltd vs. Ravinder
Kumar Suri , (2004 ) 8 SCC 307 and Pawan Kumar Gupta vs. B.R.
Gupta , (2017 ) 14 SCC 541 has held that w here the tenant fails to pay
the rent of even a paltry sum of rent , inspite of earlier d efault and a
direction to do so , the ARC as also the RCT would be right in refusing
to exercise the discretion vested in them to condone such delay in
favour of such recalcitrant tenant. I, therefore, find no infirmity in
refusal of t he ARC and the RCT to exercise the discretion vested in
them in favour of the petitioner.
16. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petitions.
The same are dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J
JANUARY 29, 2 021/rv
2021:DHC:341