Civil Appeal No. 6461 of 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 36427 of 2014). Case: Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs B.R. Gupta. Supreme Court

Case Number:Civil Appeal No. 6461 of 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 36427 of 2014)
Party Name:Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs B.R. Gupta
Judges:Jasti Chelameswar and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
Issue:Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1), 14(2), 15(1); Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106
Judgement Date:May 09, 2017
Court:Supreme Court


S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

  1. Leave granted.

  2. This appeal emanates from the proceedings of an eviction petition filed by the Respondent-landlord on 12.4.2004 Under Sections 14(1)(a),(b), (d) and (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') against the Appellant-tenant before the Additional Rent Controller, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, seeking eviction of the Appellant-tenant from the premises bearing property No. 47, 1st Floor, Bunglow Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. It is an admitted position that the premises in question was let out by the landlord to the tenant for residential purposes and the last paid rent was @ Rs. 500/- p.m. exclusive of other charges. The eviction petition was confined ultimately to the solitary ground Under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The landlord issued a demand notice Under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act to the Appellant-tenant on 19.1.2004 demanding rent @ Rs. 500/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.4.2001 along with interest thereon. Since the tenant failed to pay the rent, the petition for eviction of the tenant was filed as aforesaid.

  3. The tenant filed the written statement denying the allegations made in the eviction petition besides providing his defence on merits. However, with regard to the ground of non-payment of rent, it was, inter alia, contended that he is not guilty of non-payment and he had paid the rent from time to time to the landlord who did not issue any receipt against the same. It was further contended that pursuant to the receipt of demand notice dated 19.1.2004, he had sent a reply dated 22.3.2004 whereby he tendered a sum of Rs. 18,000/- to the landlord by way of a bank draft towards rent @ Rs. 500/- p.m. for the period 1.4.2001 till 30.9.2004. To the aforesaid written statement of the tenant, the landlord filed his replication categorically denying the allegations made in the written statement and reaffirmed the contents of his eviction petition.

  4. After completion of the pleadings, the matter was taken up by the Rent Controller for consideration Under Section 15(1) of the Act. Keeping in view the respective stand of the parties, the Rent Controller passed an order dated 7.2.2005 directing the tenant to pay or deposit a sum of Rs. 500/- p.m. as rent w.e.f. 1.10.2004 and continue to pay the same at the aforesaid rate month by month.

  5. Thereafter, parties led their evidence. After the conclusion of the evidence, the Rent Controller allowed the petition by order dated 27.4.2010 Under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The Rent Controller held that the tenant has failed to prove that he had tendered the rent to the landlord pursuant to the demand notice dated 19.1.2004 and thus the tenant is guilty of non-payment of rent within the ambit of Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. While passing the said judgment the Rent Controller directed the Nazir to submit a report for the purpose of consideration of entitlement of the tenant to the benefit Under Section 14(2) of the Act. The matter was taken up by the Rent Controller on 6.7.2010 on which date the Rent Controller perused the Nazir's report who stated that the tenant even failed to deposit the rent regularly in compliance of the said order Under Section 15(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Rent Controller by an order dated 6.7.2010 held that the tenant is not entitled...

To continue reading