North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. RK Chadha

1. By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution ofIndia, the petitioner has assailed order dated 21®' February, 2012 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the eviction order of the additional rent controller dated 10'^' January, 2011 in respect of the ground floor of flat bearing No. 10, block No. 9A, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Ihe suit premises").

2. As for brief facts of the matter for the purpose of adjudicating the present petition are concerned, a number of private residential properties were taken on rent by the Municipal Corporation for the purpose of providing accommodation to the Municipal staff. The petitioner had taken CM(M) No. 3J2/2013 Page 1 of[4] 2013:DHC:7451 •-V on rent the suit premises from the respondent for the purpose of using it as residence for the employees of the Municipal Corporation.

3. The respondent had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent, wherein benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act was given to the petitioner. Thereafter on a subsequent default in payment of rent, the respondent filed another eviction petition against the petitioneron the ground of second default in payment of rent and non-residing by staff member/employee of petitioner for last six months. It is from this eviction petition that the present petition under Article 227 arose.

4. The respondent stated that the suit premises were lying vacant for more than six years and electricity and water connections were lying unused/disconnected. In the written statement, the petitioner stated that the suit premises was being allotted to employees as and when any requisition came. It was stated that the suit premises may remain vacant in between the vacation of last occupant and allotment to prospective employee. The landlord was accepting rent for six months at a time. It was contended that rent for the period of January, 2007 - June, 2007 was tendered on 14^'^ November, 2007, however, was refrised to be accepted by the respondent. The petitioner explained that the delay was so caused because the file for approval of rent for the saidwas not received back and no memo was issued to the diary clerk. On coming to know that that the file was misplaced, immediate steps were taken to tender payment to the respondent.

5. The learned trial court, while passing the eviction order against the petitioner, opined that since the service ofnotice for payment ofrent was not disputed, eviction petition be allowed, also because benefit under Section 14 (2) of the Act had already been availed of by the petitioner in the previous CM(M) No. 312/2013 Page 2 of[4] eviction petition. It was also observed that while it was averred in the eviction petition that the suit premises were lying locked for about 7 years, the petitioner could have easily produced the water bills, electricity bills, voter ID or other relevant documents to show residence by its employee but did not bother to do so.

6. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal to the said order on the ground that the learned trial court had failed to appreciate that there was no willflil default in payment of rent.

7. The learned Appellate Court noted that undisputedly, the petitioner tendered rent but the same was done much beyond two months from the date of notice sent by the respondent to the petitioner. It was opined that Section 14(l)(a) of the Act does not require any willful default, it simply speaks of default. Moreover, the averment of the petitioner that Section 477 of the MCD Act requires a two months' notice to be served before filing of the eviction petition, was not tenable, as notice under Section 477 of the MCD Actwas not required. Noticeunderthe said Section is required for the suit in respect of act done under MCD Act. Payment or non-payment of rent and consequent eviction is not an act underMCD Act. It was also mentioned that because of this reason no objection regarding non service of notice under Section 477 MCD Act was taken in the previous eviction petition.

8. With these observations, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and aggrieved thereof, challenging the impugned order, the petitioner has filed the present petition on the giounds mainly that the impugned order is erroneous.

9. Parties have admitted that respondent has already taken the possession of suit property tlirough court process and the same has also been sold to one CM(M) No. 312/2013 Page 3 of[4] Mrs. Sangita, wife ofMr. Raman Kumar resident ofD-140, New R,ajinder Nagar, New Delhi.

10. It has come on record that after service of notice to the petitioner, no rent was accepted by the respondent. It is the admitted position that despite of benefit granted to the petitioner under Section 14(2) of the Act, the petitioner again failed to given rent w.e.f. January, 2007 inspite ofservice of notice dated 4^^' August, 2007. The premises was let out for residential purposes but no one was residing there. There is no answer in this respect from the side of petitioner. There is also no answer to the query raised by the court to the effect that the premises was lying vacant for the last more than six years. It is come onrecord that electricity and water lying unused and disconnected.

11. Two courts below have already examined the entire gamut of the matter. The plearaised bythe petitioner has examined discussed and decided against the petitioner.

12. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner has argued the petition half heartedly. There is no merit in the petition.. The same is dismissed.

13. No costs. (mSnmoh^ S&gh/ JUDGE SEPTEMBER 19, 2013