IN THE COURT OF SH.

VAIBHAV CHAURASIA,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.

ARC No. 25563/2016

CNR No. DLWT03-000295-2016

1. Sh. Prem Chand

S/o Sh. Kishori Lal
37/7, Uri Enclave, Near Brar Square
Delhi Cantt-110010.

2. Sh. Girdhari Lal

S/o Sh. Kishori Lal
R/o Qtr. No. 97/7, Double Storey,
Codme Line,
Delhi Cantt-110010.

3. Sh. Rajesh
S/o Late Sh. Babu Lal
R/o WZ-332, Harijan Colony,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. …. Petitioners

Versus

Smt. Radha
W/o Sh. Usman
R/o H. No. 83, Gali No. 10,
Deep Enclave Part-I,
Vikas Nagar Hastsal,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi. …. Respondent

Date of Filing : 17.02.2016

Date of Judgment : 13.08.2024

JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts of the present case are that on 18.02.2016, the petitioner filed the
present petition Under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Act, 1958 (hereinafter
referred to as “DRC Act”) praying to this court to pass an order for eviction in favour
of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the premises i.e. entire
plot/built up portion consisting of two room set, latrine, bathroom, kitchen and

ARC No. 25563/16 Prem Chand & Ors. Vs. Radha Page 1 /9
albestow room at first floor of property bearing plot No. 83, measuring 50 sq.yds.,
out of Kh. No. 12/2/2, situated in the area of Vill. Hastsal, Delhi Colony, known as
Deep Enclave, Part-I, Vikas Nagar, Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi as shown in
the site plan .

2. It is averred by the petitioners are the co-owners of the plot/built up portion

consisting of two room set, latrine, bathroom, kitchen and albestow room at first floor
of property bearing plot No. 83, measuring 50 sq.yds., out of Kh. No. 12/2/2, situated
in the area of Vill. Hastsal, Delhi Colony, known as Deep Enclave, Part-I, Vikas Nagar,
Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. That the respondent is a tenant in respect of the said
entire plot as shown red in the site plan at a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- per month
excluding all other charges. That the respondent is a habitual defaulter in making the
payment of rent and the respondent has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent
w.e.f. 01.12.2014 onwards i.e. at the rate of Rs. 2500/- inspite of repeated requests and
demands of notice dated 10.09.2015 which is duly served upon the respondent. That
the petitioners no. 1 & 2 requires the tenanted premises for their bonafide need for
themselves and for their family members dependent upon them.
Lastly, it is prayed by the petitioners that an eviction order may be passed
against the respondent.

3. Written Statement was filed by the respondent in response to petition filed by

the petitioner U/S 14 (1)(a) of D.R.C Act, 1958 praying to the court to dismiss the
present petition with costs.
In her written statement the respondent has inter-alia submitted that the
petitioner is not the owner and landlord of the tenanted premises and a false and
frivolous petition has been filed to grab the others property. That Smt. Rajni Devi W/o
Sh. Firoz Chand is the actual owner of the suit premises and the petitioners have
forged and fabricated the title documents of the suit premises which are not registered
and only notarized to grab the suit premises and let out the suit premises to the
respondent. That the title documents have been filed by the petitioners are unregistered
and there is not any Sale Deed filed by the petitioners. Hence, petition is liable to be

ARC No. 25563/16 Prem Chand & Ors. Vs. Radha Page 2 /9
dismissed. That the petitioners are not entitled to get vacated the property in question
and use the suit property for their own use.
Lastly, it is prayed by the respondent that the present eviction petition may be
dismissed.

4. Replication to the W.S. of the respondent has also been filed by the petitioners
wherein it has been submitted that initially the premises was let out to the respondent
by one Ms. Rajni Devi W/o Sh.Firoz Chand who sold the said property i.e. property
No. 83, out of Khasra No. 12/2/2, situated in village Hastsal, Delhi colony, known as
Deep Enclave, Part-I, Vikas Nagar, Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi to the petitioners
by virtue of the prevalent sale documents such as Agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt,
GPA and Will, all dated 12.10.2013. That thereafter respondent attorned to the
petitioners and consequently a rent agreement between the petitioner Rajesh and the
respondent was executed qua the tenanted premises.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner led evidence and examined himself as PW-1, Sh.
Girdhari Lal as PW-2, Sh. Rajesh as PW-3, Sh. Rajni Devi as PW-4 and Sh. Virender
Kumar as PW-5 who were cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent and
thereafter PE was closed by the petitioner on 15.01.2020.
Since, the opportunity of the respondent to lead Respondent’s Evidence was
closed vide order dated 09.11.2023, no evidence was led on behalf of respondent and
the matter was fixed for final arguments.

6. I have heard the arguments. I have also carefully gone through the testimonies
of all the witnesses, documents and material on record.

LAW ON SEC. 14(1) (a) D.R.C. ACT:-

7. It is expedient to reproduce the relevant provision of Delhi Rent Control Act so
that position may be crystal clear:-
“Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for

ARC No. 25563/16 Prem Chand & Ors. Vs. Radha Page 3 /9
the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by court or any controller in
favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the controller may, on an application made to him in the
prescribed manner, make an order for recovery of possession of the premises on one or
more of the following grounds only, namely:-
“(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole
arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two
months of the day on which a notice of demand for the arrears
of rent has been served of him by the landlord in the manner
provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4
of 1882).”

As such, the following are the ingredients of section 14(1) proviso (a) :-
(i) There should be a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
(ii) There should be a non-payment or tendering of whole arrears of legally
recoverable rent within two months of service of legal notice upon the
tenant given by the landlord.

8. Let us discuss the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(a) D.R.C. Act.

(i). RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT/OWNERSHIP:-

9. In the present case, the petitioner is stating to be owner of the suit property
while the respondent herein has denied the ownership/ landlordship of the petitioner
herein. It has been further stated by the respondent that it is Smt. Rajni Devi, wife of
Sh. Firoz Chand, who was the owner of the suit property and the petitioners have
forged and fabricated the title documents of the suit premises. It is also contended by
the respondent that in view of unregistered title documents, no better title flows in
favour of the present petitioners. However, perusal of record reveals that Smt. Rajni
Devi, wife of Sh. Firoz Chand, has deposed as PW-4 in the present case wherein she
has categorically deposed that the respondent was inducted as tenant in the suit

ARC No. 25563/16 Prem Chand & Ors. Vs. Radha Page 4 /9
property in the year 2012 and she has sold the suit property to Sh. Prem Chand, Sh.
Rajesh and Sh. Girdhari in the year 2013. Even during the cross examination, she has
deposed that she has already told the respondent that she had already sold the property
to the aforesaid persons. Even otherwise, this Court has gone through the Ex. PW-1/2,
Ex. PW-1/3 and Ex. PW-1/4(set of documents pertaining to better title) wherein this
Court is satisfied that the petitioners herein are having better title to the suit property
and respondent herein being tenant as per her own admission qua erstwhile owner PW-
4. Henceforth, the relationship of landlord and tenant stands established. As far as
ownership is concerned, the present petition is U/Sec. 14(1)(a) of D.R.C. Act and there
is no requirement of proving the ownership to get the relief U/Sec. 14(1)(a) of D.R.C.
Act. Even, U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act, the petitioner need not to prove his
ownership in absolute term.

10. As such, it is proved on record that there exists relationship of landlord-tenant

between the parties.

(ii) Service of Legal Demand Notice:-

11. Perusal of record shows that in the present eviction petition, the petitioners have
claimed to have given legal demand notice dated 10.09.2015 (Ex. PW-1/7) through
postal receipt (Ex. PW-1/8) and tracking report (Mark-A).
On the other hand, in reply to paragraph no. 18(b), the respondent has claimed
to have not received any notice dated 10.09.2015 or of any other date and she has
further claimed that the said notice is forged document.
Perusal of record shows that the petitioner has placed on record legal demand
notice dated 10.09.2015 Ex. PW-1/7, postal receipt Ex. PW-1/8 and tracking report
Mark-A.
It is pertinent to reproduce the Section 27 of General clauses Act which is as
under :-
Section-27—Meaning of service by post—where any central Act or
Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or

ARC No. 25563/16 Prem Chand & Ors. Vs. Radha Page 5 /9
 requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression
“serve” or either of the expressions “give” or “send” or any other
expression is used then, unless a different intention appears, the service
shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and
posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless
the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the
letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.”

In the case titled as K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan 1999 A.I.R
SC 3762, the Hon’ble Supreme court observed :-
“The principle incorporated in section 27 can profitably be
imported in a case where the sender has dispatched the notice by
post with the correct address written on it. Then it can be deemed
to have been served on the sendee unless he proves that it was not
really served and that he was not responsible for such non-
service.”

Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1972 lays down as under:-

114: Court may presume existence of certain facts. That the

court may presume existence of any fact which it thinks likely to
have happened, regard being head to the common course of
natural events, human conduct and public and private business,
in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

Illustrations:
The court may presume-
(a)...
(b)...
(c)...
(d)...
(e)...
(f) That the common course of business has been followed in
particular cases; -

(g)....
(h).....
(I).....

but the court shall also have regard to such facts as the
following, in considering whether such maxim do or do not apply

ARC No. 25563/16 Prem Chand & Ors. Vs. Radha Page 6 /9
 to the particular case before it:-”
As to illustration (a).....
As to illustration (b).....
As to illustration (c).....
As to illustration (d).....
As to illustration (e).....

As to illustration (f): The question is whether a letter was

received. It is shown to have been posted, but the usual course of
the post was interrupted by disturbances;

As to illustration (g).....
As to illustration (h).....
As to illustration (i)........”

12. It is well settled law that this presumption is a rebuttable presumption. If there
is any such circumstance weakening such presumption, it cannot be ignored by the
court.

13. I have carefully and minutely gone through the record which shows that the
respondent has merely made the bald averments in respect of non receiving of such
legal demand notice given by the petitioners.
Perusal of record shows that the respondent has merely denied the notice but
has done nothing to prove it. It was the duty of the respondent to prove that she was
not served by such notice, but she failed to rebut the evidence and documents of
petitioners in respect of legal demand notice.
It is reiterated that the opportunity of the respondent to lead evidence has
already been closed and no evidence was led by the respondent.

14. As such, in my considered view, the legal demand notice as stipulated Section
14(1)(a) of DRC Act is proved to have been served upon the respondent.

(iii). Non payment of rent:-

15. Perusal of record shows that in the present case, the petitioners have claimed
that the respondent has not paid or tendered the rent w.e.f. December 01.12.2014 @

ARC No. 25563/16 Prem Chand & Ors. Vs. Radha Page 7 /9
Rs. 2500/- p.m. On the other hand, the respondent has not disputed the rate of rent.
It is well settled that it is the duty of respondent to prove that he/she has paid or
tendered or deposited the rent upto date and there is no outstanding rent. But in the
present case, no document has been placed on record to prove the fact that the rent was
paid/not paid upto December, 2014 and she has merely taken the vague plea. No rent
receipt has been placed on record. It is pertinent to mention that no evidence has been
led by the respondent. As such, there is nothing on record to show that rent was paid or
tendered or deposited upto December 01.12.2014 by the respondent.

16. As such, it is clear that this ingredient U/Sec. 14(1)(a) of D.R.C. Act is also
satisfied.

CONCLUSION :-
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and settled proposition of law, this Court has
come to the conclusion that the petitioners have satisfied all the ingredients of Section
14(1)(a) of D.R.C. Act in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. entire plot/built up
portion consisting of two room set, latrine, bathroom, kitchen and albestow room at
first floor of property bearing plot No. 83, measuring 50 sq.yds., out of Kh. No.
12/2/2, situated in the area of Vill. Hastsal, Delhi Colony, known as Deep Enclave,
Part-I, Vikas Nagar, Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi as shown in the site plan Ex.
PW-1/1.

18. It is pertinent to mention that no order U/Sec. 15(1) D.R.C. Act has been
passed. As such, an order U/Sec. 15(1) D.R.C. Act is being passed in the present
case directing the respondent to pay or tender or deposit the rent @ Rs. 2500/-
p.m. w.e.f. 01.12.2014 till date along with simple interest @ 15% p.a. within one
month from today and she is further directed to pay or tender or deposit the
future rent with the petitioners at the same rate i.e. Rs. 2500/- p.m. on or before
the 15th day of each succeeding English calendar month.

19. Nazir is directed to file his report on 18.09.2024 regarding compliance of order

ARC No. 25563/16 Prem Chand & Ors. Vs. Radha Page 8 /9
U/Sec. 15(1) D.R.C. Act passed by this court today.

20. Miscellaneous file be prepared for ascertaining the benefits U/Sec. 14(2) of the
D.R.C. Act.

21. This file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

Announced in the open Court

On 13th August, 2024.

(This judgment contains 9 pages)

(VAIBHAV CHAURASIA)
Additional Rent Controller
West District Courts, Delhi.

ARC No. 25563/16 Prem Chand & Ors. Vs. Radha Page 9 /9