Mohd. Azhar vs Tabrej Alam

Mr. Justice M.L. Mehta, J.—This petition is filed assailing the order dated 08.05.2012 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order of Additional Rent Controller dated 29.08.2011 was dismissed. The petitioner filed eviction petition against the respondent U/s 14 (1) (a) Delhi Rent Control Act (in short Act) against the respondent in respect of flat No. H-204, Taj Sartaj Group Cooperative Housing Society alleging that the respondent was his tenant in respect of suit premises @ Rs.3000/- per month and that he was irregular and habitual defaulter in payment of rent since 1.9.1999. A notice of demand dated 24.10.2007 was stated to have been served upon the respondent/tenant, but he did not pay the rent despite service.

In the written statement filed by the respondent, he denied receipt of any demand notice. He also denied that the rent of the suit premises was Rs.3000/- per month. The rent of the suit premises was stated to be 800 per month. It was denied that he was in arrears of rent or that he was defaulter as alleged. It was averred that he had tendered the whole recoverable rent in the month of August, 1999, but since the petitioner refused to accept the same, he deposited the rent for the month of August, 1999 in the court U/s 27 of the Act. He averred having paid the rent up to August, 2007, without any receipt issued by the petitioner.

An order U/s 15 (1) DRC Act was passed on 17.10.2008 by the ARC directing the respondent to pay the arrears at Rs.800/- per month w.e.f. November, 2007 and also further rent at this rate by the 15th day of each succeeding month. After recording the evidence of both the parties, the learned ARC recorded a finding of fact that the rent of the suit premises was Rs.800/- per month and the same had not been paid by the respondent since 1.9.1999. It was observed that since the petition which was filed on 3.3.2008, order U/s 15 (1) DRC Act passed on 17.10.2008 was modified directing the respondent to pay the arrears of rent preceding to three years from the date of filing of the petition i.e. w.e.f. 1.3.2005 @ Rs.800/- till date after adjusting the amounts already paid by him. This order was carried in appeal by the petitioner/landlord. The appeal came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 8.5.2012. This order of the appellate court as also that of the ARC have been assailed in the instant petition. The main ground that has been pressed is that the rent of the suit premises was Rs.3000/- per month and not Rs.800/- per month. In this regard reference was sought to be made to the testimony of PW 2 examined before the learned ARC. This witness PW 2 claimed to be the honorary Secretary of the Society, but he produced nothing on record to show himself to be the Secretary of the Society. His testimony was not relied upon by the learned ARC as he did not know the number of the flat which he stated he was owning and had sold. He had only made a vague statement about the prevailing rent in the Society flats during the period when he was a member. The petitioner was claiming the rent of the premises being Rs.3000/- per month merely on the assumed market rent of the flats in the area, based on the testimony of PW2. He could not bring any evidence on record to substantiate the rent of the suit premises to be Rs.3000/- per month. So much so, even the respondent was not suggested the rent of the suit premises to be Rs.3000/- per month against his specific statement regarding the rent to be Rs.800/- per month. Both the courts below have recorded finding of fact regarding the rent of the said premises to be Rs.800/- per month and I do not seen any reason to interfere or disturb the finding of fact. I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

The petition has no merit and is dismissed.