Final Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMA-I:
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL, SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLSH01-005850-2024
RCT ARCT No.10/2024
SHRI SACHIN VERMA
S/o Late Sh. Varun Verma
R/o X/439, 3rd Floor
Gali No.0, Ram Nagar
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 110031
…Appellant
Versus
1. SH. AVTAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED)
Through his Legal Heirs
(I) SMT. GURVINDER KAUR
(II) SH. GURPREET SINGH
(III) MS. JASVINDER KAUR
All At:-
Shop No. 1, Ground Floor
X/439, Gali No. 0, Ram Nagar
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 110031
2. SMT. BALWINDER KAUR
3. S. GURJEET SINGH
Both Legal Heirs of
Late Sh. Tajinder Singh
All At:-
Shop No. 1, Ground Floor
X/439, Gali No. 0, Ram Nagar
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi – 110031
Also At:-
H.No. K-11, Street No. 5
Old Govindpura Extension
Krishna Nagar
Delhi - 110051
…Respondents
RCT ARCT No.10/2024 Sachin Verma vs Avtar Singh Through LRs. Page 1 of 10
-- 1 of 10 --
Date of filing : 07.10.2024
Date of arguments : 04.10.2025
Date of Judgment : 06.11.2025
J U D G M E N T
1. This judgment shall dispose of an appeal filed on behalf of
appellant/landlord under Section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 (hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act”) against the
impugned order dated 30.08.2024, passed by Ld.
ARC/ACJ/CCJ in Eviction Petition bearing No. E-165/2019
whereby the application of the appellant under Section 15(7)
and 14(2) of the DRC Act was dismissed.
2. It is pleaded that the appellant is the owner of property bearing
Shop No. 1, Ground Floor, X/439, Gali No. 0, Ram Nagar,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi – 110031 (hereinafter referred to as suit
shop) and respondents were joint tenants in the said suit shop at
monthly rent of Rs.176/- per month. It is further pleaded that
appellant became the owner of the suit shop by virtue of
registered Will dated 20.01.11, executed by the erstwhile
owner namely Smt. Sharda Rani W/o Late Sh. Ram Parshad
Verma in his favour. It is pleaded that respondents have not
paid rent of the suit shop w.e.f. July 2015 till December 2018
and were in default of payment of rent for which the appellant
served them with a legal notice dated 24.12.18 and thereafter,
filed petition against the respondents under Section 14(1)(a) of
the DRC Act. Notice of the petition was served upon the
respondents who filed reply to the same. The appellant also
filed an application under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act
RCT ARCT No.10/2024 Sachin Verma vs Avtar Singh Through LRs. Page 2 of 10
-- 2 of 10 --
seeking directions to the respondents to pay arrears of rent
w.e.f. July 2015 to August 2019, amounting to Rs.8,800/- along
with statutory interest @ 15% per annum and further directions
to respondents to keep paying the rent by 15th day of each
English calendar month.
3. It is pleaded that despite order of Ld. Trial Court dated
06.12.2021, on the aforesaid application, the respondents failed
to comply with the directions and did not deposit the arrears of
rent and paid future rent and accordingly, appellant filed an
application under Section 15(7) and 14(2) of the DRC Act,
praying that defence of respondents be struck off and eviction
order be passed in respect of the suit shop. Respondents filed
reply to the said application and further prayed for condoning
the delay in compliance of order dated 06.12.2021, directing
them to pay arrears of rent and future rent and the said
application was allowed vide impugned order dated
30.08.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has
been filed.
4. Reply to the appeal has been filed on behalf of the respondents
stating therein that appellant has concealed material facts in
order to make false and frivolous grounds, is totally
misconceived and appellant himself has not filed any list of
witnesses before the Ld. Trial Court and is himself delaying the
matter. It is stated that pursuant to order of Ld. Trial Court
dated 06.12.2021, respondent filed an application for
depositing/paying rent on 28.03.2022 which was allowed due
to Covid-19 outbreak and hence, present appeal is liable to be
RCT ARCT No.10/2024 Sachin Verma vs Avtar Singh Through LRs. Page 3 of 10
-- 3 of 10 --
dismissed being not maintainable. On merits, respondents have
denied the landlord-tenant relationship between appellant and
themselves as no letter of attornment or letter of probate was
issued in favour of appellant. Other averments were denied
specifically and categorically. It is prayed that the appeal be
dismissed being devoid of any merits.
5. I have heard Sh. PR Sharma - Ld. Counsel for the appellant
and Ms. Gyan Mitra – Ld. Counsel for the respondent, perused
the record and have also gone through the Trial Court Record.
6. There is no dispute to the fact that an order was passed by the
Ld. ARC dated 06.12.21 under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act,
directing the respondents/tenants to deposit the arrears of rent
w.e.f May 2016 and continue to pay future rent by 15th day of
each English Calendar month at the rate of Rs.150/- per month
but without any interest. There is also no dispute that the rent
was not deposited by the respondents/tenants within the
stipulated period and was deposited only on 31.03.2022 i.e.
after a delay of about two months and 25 days. It is also an
admitted fact on record that no formal application seeking
condonation of delay in deposit of rent was filed by the
respondents but it was only on an application praying for
deposit of rent in court dated 28.03.2022, that the impugned
order was passed. The application of the appellant under
Section 15(7) and 14(2) of the DRC Act was filed on
18.04.2022. The application for deposit of rent was allowed by
the Ld. Trial Court while the application of the appellant under
Section 15(7) and 14(2) of the DRC Act was dismissed vide the
RCT ARCT No.10/2024 Sachin Verma vs Avtar Singh Through LRs. Page 4 of 10
-- 4 of 10 --
impugned order.
7. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the Ld.
Trial Court could not have
suo moto condoned the delay in
deposit of rent without any formal application having been
filed by the respondent seeking such condonation. On the other
hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the court
passed the impugned order after considering the submissions
made by her and had even imposed cost to compensate the
delay in deposit of the rent.
8. The question is whether the court can on its own, and on
simple submissions, condone the delay in deposit of rent and
take away the right which became vested in the landlord under
Section 14(2) and 15(7) of the DRC Act on account of non-
deposit of rent.
9. It was vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents that the
application was filed with a prayer to deposit the rent which
was allowed. I have seen the said application on the Trial Court
Record. It is a simple application wherein it is stated that
respondent no. 1 demanded the bank account from the
petitioner number of times orally but despite specific demand,
petitioner did not provide his bank account and therefore, the
applicant wants to deposit the rent before the treasury of the
court. There is no specific prayer for condoning the delay in
deposit of the rent nor any other reason for not depositing the
rent in time has been mentioned.
10. The Ld. Trial Court had observed the conduct of the
RCT ARCT No.10/2024 Sachin Verma vs Avtar Singh Through LRs. Page 5 of 10
-- 5 of 10 --
respondents/tenants in the impugned order in so many words. It
has been observed that “
the respondent may have acted clumsy
manner in having gotten delayed in deposit of rent……”. It
was further observed “
therefore, whilst not discarding the lax
nature of vigilance, it is prayed by the respondent…….”. Thus,
the Ld. Trial Court admitted that the delay was caused because
of the casual approach of the respondent in deposit of the rent
in time but still condoned the delay holding that “
possibility of
respondent being unable to secure the copy of the order passed
under Section 15(1) of DRC Act in time and there being some
delay qua the same or not having the bank account number of
the petitioner readily available are grounds which cannot be
ruled out as wholly unreasonable”. In the opinion of this court,
once the Trial Court was convinced about the lackadaisical
approach and conduct of the respondent, it could not have
condoned the delay in deposit of rent on mere hypothetical
grounds and without a proper application for condoning the
delay laying down explanation for day to day delay in deposit
of the rent in time in compliance of the order passed under
Section 15(1) of the DRC Act.
11. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that in
March 2020 Covid–19 had spread out and as such, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in
suo moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020 vide
order dated 10.01.2020 held that
“the period of limitation shall
remain excluded for any general or special laws in respect of
all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The order in itself is
quite unambiguous. It speaks of limitation period provided in
RCT ARCT No.10/2024 Sachin Verma vs Avtar Singh Through LRs. Page 6 of 10
-- 6 of 10 --
any general or special law governing a judicial or quasi-judicial
proceeding. The act of deposit of rent by the respondent was
not governed by any such statute but was only a direction that
too, by way of order dated 06.12.2021. Thus, the said order of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not available to the respondents
and particularly when it was never agitated before the Ld. Trial
Court.
12. In case the respondents wanted they could have contacted the
Ld. Counsel for the appellant or even the appellants, on phone
to seek the details of the bank account where the rent was to be
deposited. The phone numbers of the Ld. Counsels for the
parties are already on the record of the Ld. Trial Court on the
vakalatnamas of the counsels, and even otherwise, the parties
are well known to each other. The other ground on which the
application for deposit of rent was allowed, that certified copy
was not available, is also vague. The respondents have
nowhere stated either in the application or even in the reply to
the present appeal as to when they applied for the certified
copy of the order dated 06.12.21 and when they received it. On
the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that he
obtained the certified copy promptly. Even otherwise, the order
is always uploaded on the website of the court and there is
nothing on record to show that it was not uploaded at the
earliest nor the respondents have submitted as to when it was
uploaded. The Trial Court Record shows that the arguments on
the application under Section 15(1) DRC Act were heard on
04.12.21 when the Ld. Counsel for the respondents was also
RCT ARCT No.10/2024 Sachin Verma vs Avtar Singh Through LRs. Page 7 of 10
-- 7 of 10 --
present and the order was passed only on a day after i.e. on
06.12.21. It cannot even be presumed that the respondent never
bothered to confirm the order from the court and if they did
not, it again shows their casual and delayed approach to the
proceedings for which no leniency can be awarded to them.
There is also no reason on record as to why the respondents
failed to deposit or pay the future rent to the landlord/appellant.
13. In the opinion of this court, the Ld. Trial Court fell in error in
suo moto condoning the delay in the deposit of rent / arrears of
rent without any formal application having been filed. In
Manohar Lal (deceased) through legal heir’s vs Prem Nath
Gera (deceased) through legal heirs (CM(M) No. 638/2011)
dated 24.05.11 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, it was
observed as under:
“
In fact, once there is non-payment or delay in
deposit/payment of the rent, there is non-compliance of
Section 15(1) order disentitling the benefit under Section
14(2) and it is the tenant who has to move an application
for condoning of delay giving reasons as to why there is
non-compliance/delayed compliance of the order under
Section 15(1) of the Act. The shoe is not on the other foot
as is sought by Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioners that
first the landlord must apply for striking of the defence
and only then, the tenant is bound to give the reasons for
non-compliance of the order Under Section 15(1) of the
Act.”
14. Similarly, in
The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs
Hem Chand & Anr. 1972 DLT 474 Delhi (FB), the Hon’ble
Court held as under: -
“
Controller has no power, and no jurisdiction in
that sense, to condone the delay in deposit of the amount
RCT ARCT No.10/2024 Sachin Verma vs Avtar Singh Through LRs. Page 8 of 10
-- 8 of 10 --
of rent directed to be paid or deposited under Section 15
sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) (in the latter case
only when the order is under sub-section (1) of Section
15) so as to wipe off the default that has occurred, but in
all other cases where no right of eviction is vested in the
landlord by reason of the default, the Controller can
condone the default.”
15. In
BR Gupta Vs Pawan Kumar Gupta (CM(M) No. 415/2012)
dated 01.12.14, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed in
para 22 as under: -
“
Furthermore, the tenant had also not moved an
application for condonation of delay. For condonation
of delay, the tenant is required to offer cogent and just
reasons which admittedly, have not been done in the
present case. This Court in Sanjay Kumar Saxena
(supra) held that if the Controller is satisfied that there
has been default in compliance of the order passed
under Section 15(1) and the said default has not been
condoned by the Court, the defaulting tenant is not
entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act.
Insofar as there were defaults on several occasions by
the tenant in complying with the order dated
07.02.2005 and such defaults were never condoned, the
tenant was not entitled to the benefit under Section
14(2) of the Act.”
(The above judgments have been relied upon by the Ld.
Counsel for the appellant).
16. Thus, it is clear from the above judgments that the Ld. Trial
Court fell in grave error in allowing the respondents to deposit
the rent after a delay of more than two months without any
application filed by them for condoning the delay giving
cogent reasons for the purpose. The right accrued to the
appellant upon non-deposit and non-payment of rent could not
have been taken away by the Ld. Trial Court despite observing
RCT ARCT No.10/2024 Sachin Verma vs Avtar Singh Through LRs. Page 9 of 10
-- 9 of 10 --
the conduct of the respondents as aforesaid. Hence, the
impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be
set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.12.2021 is
set aside and the application of the appellant under Section
15(7) read with Section 14(2) of the DRC Act is allowed. It is
held that the respondents defaulted in payment of rent after
availing an earlier opportunity under section 14(1) of the Act
and therefore, are not entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of
the DRC Act. Their defence is accordingly struck off and an
order of eviction of the suit shop bearing no. Shop No. 1,
Ground Floor, X/439, Gali No. 0, Ram Nagar, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi – 110031 is hereby passed under Section 14(2) of the
DRC Act, directing the respondents to hand over the vacant
peaceful possession of the suit shop to the appellant within
three months from the date of this order.
Appeal is accordingly allowed.
Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
TCR be sent back to Ld. Trial Court along with a copy
of this order.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
On 06th day of November, 2025
(SANJAY SHARMA-I)
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/
RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL
SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
RCT ARCT No.10/2024 Sachin Verma vs Avtar Singh Through LRs. Page 10 of 10
-- 10 of 10 --