M.L. Mehta, J.@mdashBy this common order, both the petitions of petitioner Kanshi Ram filed u/s 227 of the Constitution are being disposed as identical questions arise in both these cases. The respondents are the tenants under the petitioner in respect of different rooms in premises SE-9, Village Singhalpur, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. The petitioner filed separate eviction petitions against them on the ground of non-payment of rent by them in respect of their tenanted premises. Both the petitions against the respondents were dismissed by the ARC. The petition against respondent Tara Kant was dismissed by ARC on 16th February, 2006 and the one against respondent Amiri Missar on 26th April, 2008. The petitioner carried the matters in appeals. Both the appeals filed by him also came to be dismissed by the District Judge-cum-Addl. Rent Control Tribunal in Rohini District Courts (ARCT). The appeal in the case of respondent Tara Kant was dismissed on 30th October, 2009, and in the case of respondent Amiri Missar on 29th September, 2009. These petitions are against these two separate orders of ARCT. The grounds of assailing the orders of the ARC, as also of the ARCT, in both the cases, and also the submissions made before me, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are same, which were before the ARC and also before the ARCT, that the respondents are in arrears of rent, and have not paid the same despite issue of demand notices. In the case of respondent Amiri Missar, it was also the petitioner''s case that the defence of this respondent was struck off, but still the learned ARC has proceeded to dismiss the petition, and that the ARCT has also erred in upholding the order of the ARC. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as also the respondents and perused the records. In both the cases, undisputedly, the respondents had written letters to the petitioner, and had also remitted the rent due from them, by money order, before issue of notices of demand, and that the said letters of the respondents, remained uncontroverted by the petitioner. It is also proved on record that in both the cases, the notices of demand of rent were issued after the receipt of the letters from the respondents, but were got predated to show that these were issued prior to the issue of notices of demand of rent. I will take up the cases individually to see the findings so recorded by the ARC and maintained by the ARCT.
2. In the case of respondent Tara Kant, the petitioner had admitted the receipt of letter dated 1st November, 2000 (Ex. PW-1/9) from the respondent. In this letter, the respondent had stated that he had been paying the rent regularly and had paid the rent upto October, 2000, but no receipt was issued to him so far. He had also mentioned about sending of rent for the month of November, 2000 by way of money order for the said reason and, that in future also, he would send the rent by money order. The petitioner had got issued a notice of demand dated 30th October, 2000 (Ex. PW-1/3). The petitioner, however, did not place anything on record to substantiate that this notice dated 30th October, 2000 was got issued on this date. The learned ARC rightly observed that if this notice had been issued on 30th October, 2000, the petitioner would have placed on record postal receipt or AD card etc. to prove the issue of this notice, and he having not done so, an adverse inference was to be drawn against him. It is, however, undisputed that the letter dated 1st November, 2000 (Ex. PW-1/9) was received by the petitioner, and was never replied. The averments of the respondent set out in this letter, remained uncontroverted throughout. On the other hand, the respondent replied to the demand notice (Ex. PW-1/3), as also subsequent corrected notice (Ex. PW-1/4) vide his replies as Ex. PW-1/8 and PW-1/7 respectively. In his reply (Ex. PW-1/8), he had clearly denied that he has neither paid, nor tendered the rent w.e.f. 1st April, 1998. In his reply Ex. PW-1/7, he has stated that he lastly tendered the rent and demanded the receipt from the petitioner, but he refused, and it was because of this he was sending the rent for the month of November, 2000 by money order. The respondent had also sent a cheque of Rs. 13,000/- to the petitioner on 1st November, 2000 as towards the rent for the period from November, 2000 to December, 2002, and this fact was admitted by the petitioner in his cross examination. The petitioner was unable to tell as to the details of arrears of rent as mentioned on the backside of the cheque. He also admitted that despite receipt of cheque of Rs. 13,000/-, he did not issue receipt to the respondent. Based on these facts, the learned ARC recorded, and rightly so, that there was no rent due at the time of issue of notice of demand, and further that the notice of demand, though dated 30th October, 2000, was issued after the receipt of letter dated 1st November, 2000 (Ex. PW-1/9), as also cheque of Rs. 13,000/- from the respondent towards rent for the period from November, 2000 to December, 2002, and that being so, the demand notice was nothing, but a counter blast of the letter of 1st November, 2000 of the respondent. This finding of fact of the ARC was rightly confirmed by ARCT.
3. Similar is the situation in the case of respondent Amiri Missar. In this case, the arrears of rent were demanded w.e.f. 1st October, 1998 vide demand notice dated 12th November, 2000 (Ex. AW-1/3). From the postal receipt, as filed by the petitioner, it was observed by the ARC, and rightly so, that this notice of demand dated 12th November, 2000 was, in fact, posted on 20th November, 2000 as is evident from the postal stamp. It is undisputed fact that the respondent had sent a letter dated 13th November, 2000 to the petitioner, which was produced by the petitioner himself on record as Ex. AW-1/5. Further, undisputedly the contents of this letter dated 13th November, 2000 were neither refuted, nor controverted by the petitioner. As per this, the respondent had paid the rent upto October, 2000 and the rent for the month of November, 2000 @ of Rs. 200/- per month by money order. This was also reiterated by the respondent in his reply dated 20th December, 2000 to the aforesaid notice of demand dated 12th November, 2000. All these remaining unrefuted and uncontroverted, it was rightly observed by the ARC and upheld by the ARCT that the notice of demand was, in fact, issued on 20th November 2000, after the receipt of letter dated 13th November, 2000, and also the rent for the month of November, 2000. At the time of issue of notices, the respondent could not be said to be in arrears of any rent. The plea that the defence of the respondent was struck off u/s 15(7) of the Act, was of no consequence inasmuch as even after striking of the defence of the respondent, the petitioner was required to prove his case which, as discussed above, he could not. In view of my above discussion, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in any of the impugned order of ARC and ARCT in both the cases. Both the petitions are devoid of merit and are dismissed.
