Manjit Singh & Anr. v. Virendra Singh

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 3rd July, 2019 by which the Ld. ADJ dismissed the appeal against the order of the trial Court dated 27th April 2017, directing eviction of the Petitioners on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

2019:DHC:5584

2. The brief background is that the present petition relates to three shops bearing Nos.1, 3 & 5 situated in A[1], Kewal Park Extension, Opposite Delhi Cold Storage, G. T. Road, Azad Pur, Delhi (hereinafter „suit premises‟). A petition for eviction was filed by the Respondent/Landlord (hereinafter „Landlord‟) against the Petitioners/Tenants (hereinafter „Tenants‟) under Sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The petition was contested by the Tenants and vide order dated 27th April 2017, the ld. ACJ-cum-CJ, ARC (North) held that the Tenants were guilty of nonpayment of rent. The finding of the ld. ACJ is as under:

3. In view of the fact that the issue was in respect of non-payment of arrears in rent, the ld. Additional Rent Controller directed that the arrears in rent would be liable to be deposited within a period of one month.

4. An appeal was filed by the Tenants against the said order dated 27th April, 2017. On 6th June, 2017 while entertaining the appeal the following order was passed. “Heard. Issue notices of the application to the respondent as well as his counsel who is representing respondent in ld. trial court through the court of ld. Addl. Rent Controller Sh. Amit Arora on filing of PF and RC. Sh. Bhagat Singh has been heard. He has submitted that respondent herein sought a date and before ld. Trial court be requested for passing an order for grant of benefit u/s. 14 (2) of DRC Act. He has also argued that appellant is ready to deposit the rent in this court without prejudice. I have considered the submissions. TCR has been perused. Till next date, further proceedings before ld. Trial Court shall remain stayed. A copy of this order be sent to ld. Trial Court. Case to come up on 09.06.2017. Ld. Counsel for appellant submits that he will not be available on 09.06.2017 and he may be given exemption today itself for the same. Request shall be considered sympathetically on the next date.”

5. The Appellate Court had directed the stay of further proceedings before the Trial Court and did not stay the directions in respect of deposit of rent. Even at this stage, the Tenants did not choose to deposit the rent before the Trial Court.

6. On 7th September, 2017 again the Appellate Court records that the rent would now be deposited within a period of three weeks. The order reads: “Part submissions heard. During the course of submissions, ld. counsel for respondent has drawn the attention of the court to the order dated 06.06.2017 vide which the appellant had submitted that he is ready to deposit the rent without prejudice. Appellant and his counsel submit that within three weeks this undertaking shall be complied with by depositing the rent without prejudice to the rights of the appellant. Let it be so done. In case the rent will not be deposited without prejudice as per order dated 06.06.2017, the interim orders in favour of the appellant shall stand vacated. The period of deposit of rent of three weeks shall count from today. Since, appellant is not ready to deposit the rent in the ld. trial court, let the same be deposited before this court. Respondent is given liberty to file the reply with advance copy to the opposite side. Be put up filing of reply and arguments on 11.10.2017” The said direction was also not complied with. However, on 11th October, 2017, the Tenants sought to place on record a banker’s cheque for the sum of Rs.1,09,000/- along with some medical reports seeking condonation of delay in making the deposit. The same was rejected by the Appellate Court which then passed the impugned order directing the eviction of the Tenants. The observations of the Appellate Court are as under:

7. Ld. counsel for the Tenants submits that the only period of delay, that needs to be counted, is from 7th September, 2017 from when three weeks’ time was given to the Tenants and not before. It is his submission that the Appellate Court, therefore, erred in looking at the delay prior to 7th September, 2017 and dismissing the appeal of the Tenants. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Balwanti Devi v. Mahesh Kumar Chopra, 191 (2012) DLT 36.

8. This Court has considered the matter holistically. The Tenants are running a tyre business in the three shops, which are situated in a premium commercial area in Delhi. They are in possession since 1986 and have been in default of paying the rent of Rs. 300/- per shop per month, to the Landlord since 2005. The rent being so minimal, there can be no justification for not paying the same. The Additional Rent Controller’s order, clearly, holds in favour of the landlord under Section 14(1)(a) but permits the tenants to pay the arrears of rent from 2007. The said order was passed on 27th April, 2017 by which one month’s time was granted for deposit of rent - however the same was not deposited until October, 2017.

9. In fact, the judgment in Balwanti Devi (supra) records that since the Tenants are actually seeking benefit of a special legislation, there has to be strict compliance of the directions, which have been passed in such matters. In Balwanti Devi (supra) the delay was only five days and the same was, accordingly, condoned by the Court. However, the observations therein are as under: