Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 13 RC ARC 486/25 RAJKUMAR BARI Vs. KAMLESH
19.08.2026
Present: Ms. Ashi Nigam and Ms. Rashmi Gaur, Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Harsh Kumar, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the respondent.
1. Hard copy of the evidence by way of affidavit has been filed
today. Copy is stated to have been received.
2. Arguments heard on Section 15 of the DRC Act.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has highlighted paragraph No.
30 of the WS wherein an undertaking has been given by the respondent
to the extent that “the respondent is ready and willing to deposit the rent
before this Hon’ble Court; however, it is respectfully submitted that the
said amount may not be released in favour of the petitioner, as the
petitioner is not the lawful owner of the premises in question”.
4. She has also laid emphasis on the DR petition filed by the
respondent in the year 2009 which establishes that the respondent admits
himself to be a tenant in the demised premises (while disputing the
landlordship/ ownership of the petitioner) (see page No. 31-33 of the
documents annexed with the replication).
5. I have also perused paragraph No. 51 of the WS wherein it
has been pleaded that “the respondent is ready and willing to deposit the
admitted rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month under protest before this
Hon’ble Court. The respondent may be given benefit of Section 14”.
6. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the respondent is the tenant
in the demised premises. It is further not in dispute that the rent has not
been paid/ deposited in the Court for the period of three years prior to
filing of the present petition. However, the respondent has disputed the
-- 1 of 3 --
landlordship of the petitioner and the rate to rent. While the petitioner
has claimed the rate of rent as Rs. 2000/- per month, the respondent has
stated that the admitted rate of rent as Rs. 300/- per month.
7. I am of the considered view that the order u/s 15 can be
passed in the present matter by taking recourse to sub-clause 4 of Section
15 of the DRC Act. As per the said provision, where there is any dispute
as to the person to whom the rent is payable, the Controller may direct
the tenant to deposit the amount payable with the Controller himself.
Accordingly, since the ownership/ landlordship is under challenge, I
deem it fit to direct the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent with
the undersigned Court in terms of Section 15 (4) of the DRC Act.
The said amount be deposited at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. The
petitioner is at liberty to establish during the trial that the rate of
rent is, in fact, Rs. 2,000/- per month, as opposed to Rs. 300/- per
month, as claimed by the respondent.
8. The legal notice claiming arrears of rent was sent on
04.03.2025 (stated to be delivered on 07.03.2025). The petitioner can
claim arrears of rent for a period of 03 years immediately preceding the
date of service of the landlord’s legal demand notice (see Dr. O.M.
Parmar v. Harsh Vardhan Nayyar, 2022/DHC/005238, dated
24.11.2022). In this case, the arrear is claimed from 05.01.2013 to till
date, which falls outside the period as mentioned above. Therefore, the
petitioner can only claim arrears for a period of three years prior to
the date of service of the legal notice dated 04.03.2025, i.e.,
07.03.2025.
9. Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid discussion, the
respondent is directed to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 300/-
per month with interest @ 15% P.A. with the Court from 07.03.2022 till
date within 30 days from today. The respondent shall deposit future rent
-- 2 of 3 --
at the same rate by the 15th of each succeeding month.
10. Accordingly, the proceedings u/s 15(1) of the DRC Act
stands disposed of.
11. Put up for compliance of 15(1) of DRC Act and for PE on
21.11.2026.
(Devanshu Sajlan)
CCJ-cum-ARC (Central)
THC/Delhi/19.08.2026
-- 3 of 3 --