RAM PRAKASH Vs. D N SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.(M) 661/2003 is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 28.8.2003 in R.C.A. 541/2003 whereby the learned Tribunal has, while affirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 2.7.2003, held that interest on delayed payment of rent does not constitute the component of rent legally recoverable for the purpose of Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') and consequently the contractual rent having been deposited within the period of two months from the date of notice without interest was valid tender giving no cause of action to maintain a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noted by the Tribunal are : 1. The appellant served on the respondent a notice dated 10.9.92 demanding arrears of rent @897/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.5.92 to September, 92. In the notice demand was also made for payment of interest and electricity charges which were due to the appellant from the respondent at the relevant time. Respondent remitted the amount of rent amounting to Rs.4,485/-. The amount of Rs.4,485/- was received by the appellant on 9.10.92. The receipt of the amount was within two months of the notice of demand. 2. Interest was not paid nor the electricity charges as demanded was paid.

(3.) . The petition continued from 92 onwards. On the passage of three years appellant served upon the respondent a notice showing intention to enhance the rent by 10 per cent. Accordingly, the order u/s 15(1) DRC Act which was initially passed on 31.3.93 was modified on 24.11.95 and further on 11.5.99. While expressing the intention to enhance the rent appellant also claimed in the notice to seek eviction of the respondent in the event of non-compliance of the said notice.