Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1998 (RAJ)

Jagdish Kapoor v. Mohan Singh (Dead)

2014-12-04

ALOK SHARMA

body2014
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This petition purporting to both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the judgment dated 8.3.2011, passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota affirming the Rent Tribunal's judgment dated 21.7.2008 whereby the respondent-landlord-plaintiff's (herein-after "the landlord") eviction petition u/Sec. 9(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter "the Act of 2001") eviction on the ground of default was allowed. The eviction of the petitioner-tenant-defendant (hereinafter "the tenant") was directed and a certificate of possession of the rented premises a shop (hereinafter "tenanted premises") was issued in favour of the landlord. 2. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal as also the one in appeal. 3. Paraphrased Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 provides that eviction of a tenant will be directed by the jurisdictional Rent Tribunal on the landlord's application where the tenant neither pays, nor tenders the amount of rent due from him, for over four months, within 30 days from the receipt of a notice for the purpose from the land lord demanding the rent due and disclosing the Bank account, where it could be deposited. 4. The case set up by the landlord against the tenant was that the rent @ Rs. 500/- P.M. due for the period 1.6.2005 to 3.4.2006 for the tenanted premises had not been paid. The statutory notice under the proviso to Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 was sent on 12.5.2006. The Rent Tribunal as also the Appellate Rent Tribunal held that as per the assertion of the landlord in his eviction petition as also his affidavit in evidence in support thereof in the cross-examination whereof he remained unshaken, the notice had been sent on 12.5.2006 and served on the tenant on 15.5.2006. This was buttressed by Exhibit 4 which was a certificate issued by the postal authorities evidencing the fact that the registered letter dated 12.5.2006 (article) sent by the landlord had been delivered on the addressee i.e. tenant on 15.5.2006. Further admittedly the last of the amount due for the period aforesaid i.e. 11 months @ Rs. 500/- per month was paid as per the statement of tenant himself before the Rent Tribunal on 16.6.2006 with the deposit of Rs. 1,500/- in the designated bank account of the landlord. Further admittedly the last of the amount due for the period aforesaid i.e. 11 months @ Rs. 500/- per month was paid as per the statement of tenant himself before the Rent Tribunal on 16.6.2006 with the deposit of Rs. 1,500/- in the designated bank account of the landlord. The Rent Tribunal as also the Appellate Rent Tribunal on the evidence therefore held that the rent in terms of the first proviso to Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 had not to be deposited within 30 days of the receipt i.e. by 14.6.2006 but two days later i.e. 16.6.2006. Hence a ground of default in the payment of rent by the tenant was made out. So holding, the eviction of the tenant was directed and certificate of possession in favour of the landlord issued. 5. Mr. S.C. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the tenant in this writ petition has submitted that there was no evidence of any probative worth before the Rent Tribunal or for that matter before the Appellate Rent Tribunal to hold that the landlord's notice dated 12.5.2006 in terms of the proviso second to Sec. 9(a) of the Act of 2001 was served on the tenant on 15.5.2006. He submitted that in fact the notice was served on 23.5.2006 and the deposit of due rent for the period in issue upto 30.4.2006 having been admittedly made on 16.6.2006 was well in time and within 30 days as provided for by law. A case of eviction on the ground of default under Sec. 9(a) of the Act of 2001 was thus not made out, submitted Counsel. He further submitted that the specific defence/case of the tenant was overlooked by the Tribunals without good cause. He then submitted that even as per the best case of the landlord, the notice having been served on 15.5.2006 and the last of rent due and out-standing for the period of 11 months ending 30.4.2006 having been deposited on 16.6.2006 with a mere delay of two days, it was not a fit case for directing the eviction of the tenant who is otherwise unprovided for and would be rendered penurious resulting from the loss of livelihood as the tenanted premises is a shop. Counsel's submission is that the Rent Tribunal as also the Appellate Rent Tribunal ought to have taken a liberal view of the matter as they failed to and now this Court should condone the two days' delay in deposit of rent due and dismiss the eviction petition laid by the landlord. 6. Mr. Swaraj Sharma, appearing for the landlord has obviously supported the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal on 21.7.2008 as affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on 8.3.2011. 7. The consequence of a default under Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 is inexorable as the status does not provide for a condonation. The manner of determining a default has been statutorily provided for and brooks no variation. Effectively, the determination of the question as to whether the tenant is in default under Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 is an arithmetical exercise. The Tribunals, both the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal, merely have to see as to whether as on the date of the notice, the contracted rent or rent due otherwise in terms of the Act of 2001 was outstanding for more than four months; whether the statutory notice in regard thereto was issued by the landlord to the tenant disclosing the Bank account within the municipal limits of the place where the tenanted premises are situate and finally whether on receipt of notice the tenant paid thee outstanding due amount within 30 days of the receipt of the statutory notice. A liberal approach to the computation of the time in the payment of rent subsequent to the receipt of notice of outstanding and due rent cannot be warranted in the face of the statute. Therefore the Rent Tribunal as also as Appellate Rent Tribunal are under a duty to approach the matter as to the payment of rent due within 30 days of receipt of notice quite arithmatically on the evidence before them with no room at all for variation. 8. It is in this context that the Rent Tribunal correctly approached the evidence before it. The landlord had averred in his eviction petition as also in his affidavit in evidence in support thereof that the tenant had been in default in payment of rent due @ 500/- per month for a period of eleven months bet-ween 1.6.2005 to 30.4.2006. 8. It is in this context that the Rent Tribunal correctly approached the evidence before it. The landlord had averred in his eviction petition as also in his affidavit in evidence in support thereof that the tenant had been in default in payment of rent due @ 500/- per month for a period of eleven months bet-ween 1.6.2005 to 30.4.2006. In support of his case, the landlord had also filed and exhibited inter alia a certificate (Exh.4) from the postal authority evidenc-ing the factum of the delivery of the registered notice dated 12.5.2006 on the addressee i.e. the tenant at the tenanted shop on 15.5.2006. The certificate (Exh.4) issued by the postal authority is a public document in terms of Section 77 of the Evidence Act and was eminently admissible. As against the evidence of the landlord, the tenant's evidence was obviously lacking. Even though it was admitted in the reply to the eviction petition that the landlord's designated account was indeed received, the date of the receipt was not set out, nor was it stated in the affidavit in evidence in support of the reply to the eviction petition. In these circumstances, the attempt of the tenant before the Rent Tribunal in the course of the trial of the eviction petition to establish that the notice dated 12.5.2006 had been received on 23.5.2006 was of no avail. Further the tenant admitted in his cross-examination on this affidavit in evidence that the last of the amount due upto 30.4.2006 was deposited on 16.6.2006. This when the 30 days period for deposit of rent due effective the receipt of the notice dated 12.5.2006 on 15.5.206 expired on 14.6.2006. In these circumstances, the Rent Tribunal as also the Appellate Rent Tribunal, in my considered opinion, have not erred in allowing the eviction petition laid by the landlord and in issuing a certificate of possession in his favour. 9. Mr. Gupta, Counsel for the tenant then attempted to establish that no amount of rent was due to the landlord from the tenant. That to my mind cannot wash inasmuch as the tenant himself in his cross-examination before the Rent Tribunal admitted to the fact that the last of the amounts due under the notice 12.5.2006 admittedly received by him, were paid on 16.6.2006. 10. That to my mind cannot wash inasmuch as the tenant himself in his cross-examination before the Rent Tribunal admitted to the fact that the last of the amounts due under the notice 12.5.2006 admittedly received by him, were paid on 16.6.2006. 10. Aside of the aforesaid, the jurisdiction of this Court either referable to its superintending powers under Art.227 of the Constitution of India in matters arising in eviction matters is to determine whether the judgments passed by the statutory facts finding Tribunals/Courts are perverse in nature and/or grounds can be made out in the instant petition. The judgment and certificate of possession passed by the Rent Tribunal are reasonable conclusions, if not the only conclusion in the context of the state of evidence before them. The conclusions aforesaid do not warrant any interference as they are neither even remotely perverse for vitiated by any mis-direction in law. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed.