Attar Singh v. Har Bhagwan & Ors.

1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the finding returned by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) dated 03.04.2007 vide which in an appeal against the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 06.04.2004; the RCT had granted certain adjustments to the respondents/tenants.

2 Along with this petition, an application seeking condonation of delay of 203 days in refilling the present petition has been filed. The averments made in this application have been perused. It is only a one paragraph application which has stated that the petitioner got delayed in clearing the petition because of illness of the counsel who was suffering from jaundice; no dates have been mentioned. No medical record of the 2013:DHC:2214 counsel has been filed along with the application. The application in fact does not even make an averment that any justifiable cause has made out for condonation of this inordinate delay of 203 days. These averments become all the more relevant as they reflect upon the overall conduct of the counsel for the petitioner. Even after filing of this petition, no steps had been taken to file process fee to serve the respondents. This was noted in the order dated 06.08.2008. On that day, since none had appeared for the petitioner, the petition had been dismissed for nonprosecution. An application seeking restoration was thereafter filed pursuant to which the petition was restored.

3 The whole thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the RCT could not have exercised a discretion not vested with and modified the order passed by the ARC; submission being that this power was not vested with the RCT. The orders of the ARC do not call for any interference.

4 Record shows that a petition under Section 14 (1)(a) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRCA) had been filed by Nathi Ram against Har Bhagwan. Har Bhagwan was the tenant in respect of shop No. 719/1, Gaushala Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi. The eviction petition filed by Nathi Ram under Section 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA was allowed; however this being a case of first default, the tenant was directed to deposit the arrears of rent of three months prior to the date of filing of the petition within one month which were @ Rs.50/- per month. The application filed by the tenant seeking adjustment of rent was declined.

5 This order of the ARC was the subject matter of an appeal before the RCT. The case of the appellant is that the full compliance of the order dated 06.04.2004 had not been effected in view of the fact that the earlier amounts of rent already stood deposited before Rent Controller and were liable to be adjusted and the trial Court not allowing this prayer has committed an illegality. The RCT had returned the following findings:- “Under these circumstances, it would be a judicious exercise of discretion vested in this Tribunal to hold that the rent deposited by the appellant in various courts under section 27 DRC Act is allowed to be adjusted as payment towards the compliance of order passed u/s 15(1) of the Act. However, as it would put respondent to do a great task in searching out the records and making applications for withdrawal, the appropriate procedure would be direct the appellant to deposit the balance amount within 15 days from today alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of the order passed by the trial court with costs of Rs. 20,000/- in the trial court subject to that the appeal is allowed and order of the trial court is modified to that extent. The appellant shall be held to have complied with the order passed u/s 15 (1) of the Act subject to the conditions as stated above and shall be entitled the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act though the petition of the respondent u/s 14 (1)(a) of the Act would stand allowed as the appellant is certainly a first defaulter of the non payment of rent having not paid the same within the two months of the receipt of the notice of demand. A copy of this order alongwith Trial Court Record be sent back to the Trial Court.”

6 The finding returned on this count suffers from no infirmity. This Court is sitting in its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The RCT had exercised a fair discretion in granting adjustment to the tenant of the rent admittedly having been deposited by him before the ARC. This fair exercise of discretion does not call for any interference. On the point of delay also, no case has been made out by the petitioner.

7 Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J. MAY 01, 2013 A