Case: Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. B.R. Gupta

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 thep.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 ofof rent, it was, inter alia, contended that he is not guilty ofand 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 L 18,000/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 ofp.m. along with interest @ 15% p.a. Accordingly, the earlier order dated 7.2.2005 passed under Section 15(1) of the Act was modified. Nazir of the court was directed to submit report for consideration of the entitlement of the tenant to the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act.7. Nazir submitted a report whereby it was found that the tenant had been guilty ofof the order dated 7.2.2005 passed under Section 15(1) of the Act. The tenant took the stand that since he had complied with the final judgment dated 5.7.2011, the tenant is entitled to the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Rent Controller by an order dated 24.8.2011 held that the tenant has failed to provide any explanation regarding delay in depositing of rent month by month in terms of the order dated 7.2.2005. Thus he is not entitled to the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act. Therefore, the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller against the tenant under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.8. The appeal filed by the tenant challenging the said order of the Rent Controller before the Rent Control Tribunal was allowed on 24.2.2012. The landlord challenged the said order before the High Court of Delhi in C.M. Main No.415 of 2012. The High Court by order dated 01.12.2014 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored the order passed by the Rent Controller. The tenant has called in question the legality and correctness of the said order in this appeal.

Reasoning:
It is clear that if the tenant pays the arrears of rent within two months of service of notice, the landlord cannot get order for recovery of possession on the ground of default in payment of rent but if the tenant fails to pay the rent as required under Section 14(1)(a), the proceedings are taken under Section 15(1) of the Act. Under this provision the Controller shall, after giving the parties opportunity of being heard, make an order directing the tenant to pay the landlord or deposit with the Controller within one month of the date of the order, an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid for the period for which the arrears of rent were legally recoverable from the tenant including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which payment or deposit is made and to continue to pay or deposit month by month by 15th of each succeeding month a sum equal to the rent at thattenant failed to comply with the demand made in the notice, the landlord filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The tenant filed a counter stating that he had paid the rent from time to time and that the landlord did not issue any receipt against the same. It was also contended that pursuant to the demand notice dated 19th January, 2004, he had sent the reply along with a demand draft for a sum of Rupees 18,000/towards the rent @ Rupees five hundred per month from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004. The Rent Controller passed order dated 07.02.2005 under Section 15(1) of the Act, directing the tenant to pay or deposit a sum of Rupees five hundred per month with effect from 1.10.2004 within one month from the date of the order and further continue to pay or deposit future rent at the aforesaid rate month by month by 15th day of each succeeding month during trial. This order was passed because there was dispute in relation to payment of rent from 1.4.2001 till 30.9.2004. The question relating payment of rent for this period was kept open. After trial, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenant has failed to establish the payment of arrears of rents from 1.4.2001. The tenant has also failed to pay the rents from 1.10.2004 in terms of the order dated 07.02.2005. In the circumstances, it is futile to contend that that the order dated 07.02.2005 has merged with the order datedhe has failed to pay the rent in terms of the said order. After conclusion of the trial, 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 failed to prove that he had tendered the rent to the landlord pursuant to the demand notice dated 19.1.2004. 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 Nazirs report showed that the tenant had not paid the rent regularly in compliance with the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act. There was a long delay in deposit of rents. Condonation of delay can take place only when the defaulting tenants so pleads with justifiable reasons which would show that he was prevented from compliance by circumstances beyond his control. The tenant has not offered any explanation for the delay in deposit of rents. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the High Court.