Karan Singh & Anr. v. Ram Dass

1. On the first call, no one was present for the petitioner and therefore a pass-over was granted. Even on the second call, no one appears for the petitioner. I have therefore gone through the record and am proceeding to dispose of this petition.

2. The petitioners/landlords impugn the concurrent judgments of the Additional Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal dated 7.6.2012 and 17.8.2013 respectively, by which the eviction petition under Section 2014:DHC:4656 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short ‘the Act’) on the ground of second default in payment of rent has been dismissed.

3. A reading of the impugned judgments shows that the notice issued under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act is dated 9.5.2008 and rent was sent to the petitioners by a money order which was refused and therefore the rent was deposited before the Rent Controller under Section 27 of the Act on 6.7.2008. The petition under Section 27 was itself earlier filed on 1.7.2008. Both the dates of 1.7.2008 and 6.7.2008 are within two months of receipt of the demand notice dated 9.5.2008 and therefore once the deposit is within two months of receipt of the demand notice under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, arrears which are claimed are paid in time, and hence there is no default for filing of the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.

4. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are extraordinary and discretionary powers. It may be noted that the provision of second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been repealed way back in the year 1988. Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be filed as if a second appeal is being filed when there is no provision for filing of the second appeal. In any case, if this Court looks at the facts qua the issue of default, no doubt, no case is made out under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.

5. Dismissed.

SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib