717b31b5154d752147ae003569e03e5ce989411463b7053a21fc2ff4ff2384b7

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR. T. (Oral) CM No. 16671/2011 (for exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. CM(M) No.1036/2011 & CM No.16670/2011 (for stay)

1. The order impugned before this Court is the order of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) dated 20.5.2011 which had endorsed the order oif the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 17.2.2011 whereby in the eviction petition of the landlord CM(M)No.l036/2011 i Pagelof[4] y •Respondent 2011:DHC:7655 Liyakat Ali filed under Section 14(l)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the DRCA") the tenant had been directed to clear, all his arrears of rent of the proceeding three years within one month failing which he would suffer an eviction order.

2. Record shows that the present petition had been filed by the landlord against his tenant; contention was that the tenant had been given the aforenoted premises on a monthly rent of Rs.700/-; the original owner was Haseena Begum; the present landlord i.e. Liyakat Ah had purchased this property from Haseena Begum on 17.10.1997; in evidence PW-1 i.e. the landlord Liyakat Ah had come into witness box and had proved power of attorney, agreement deed, affidavit, receipt and registered will Ex.PW-1/1 (collectively) on the basis, of which he claimed that he had purchased this property from Haseena Begum. Issue raised by the tenant, was that the original owner was Haseena Begum and the documents produced by Liyakat Ali do not disclose his right, title or interest in the property. Before filing the eviction petition a legal notice had been sent to the respondent as the rent was not paid since April 2004; eviction petition under Section 14(l)(a) of the DRCA had accordingly been filed. The notice of the eviction petition had been served| upon the tenant who had put in his CM(M)No.l036/2011 ' Page[2] of 4 r: appearance on 17.11.2008; he has failed to file his written statement within the time period granted to him; his defence was struck off on 30.3.2009 and the matter was fixed for evidence of the petitioner. After one year i.e. on 30.3.2010, i.e. after a gap of eight dates the tenant had moved an application seeking setting aside the order dated 30.3.2009 vide which his defence had been struck off; this application had been rejected. The appeal against the said order has also been dismissed on 19.1.2011. This order of the ARC striking off the defence of the tenant had thus attained a finahty. The Additional Rent Controller had passed an order on 17.2.2011 directing the tenant to clear all his arrears of rent within one month failing which he would suffer an eviction. Since the defence of the tenant had been struck off the testimony of PW- 1, who had produced the documents in support of his claim that he had purchased this property from the erstwhile landlord Haseena Begum (Ex.PW-1/1) had been relied upon; the claim of the landlord had been decreed; the only dispute raised by the tenant was that Liyakat Ali was not the landlord and the documents of title in support of his claim substantiating his submission that he had purchased this property from Haseena I Begum were not credible. The fact finding court i.e. the Additional Rent Controller had held this issue against the tenant; an appeal CM(M)No.1036/2011; Page3of[4] against the order of the Additional Rent Controller can be filed only on a question of law; ARCT had considered these same submissions of the appellant and rejected them. Liyakat Ali.being the landlord of the suit premises and the rent not having been tendered by the tenant to him; the order. of the ARC dated 17.2.2011 directed the tenant to clear all arrears of rent within one month failing which the eviction order would follow.. This order endorsed by the ARCT in no manner suffer from any infirmity.

3. The right of second appeal has since been abrogated as the Section 39 of the DRCA has since been deleted. Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not to be substituted as an appellate forum. The impugned opler calls for no interference. Dismissed.

SEPTEMBER 06, 2011 nandan CM(M)No.l036/2011 INDERMEET KAUR, J.