JUDGMENT
Santosh Duggal, J.
(1) This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, after the courts of the Addl. Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal have held by concurrent judgments that the petitioner, on the facts of the case, was not entitled to the benefit of section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1957, (for short ‘the Act’) and was hit by terms of the proviso thereto.
(2) It is an admitted fact that the petitioner, on an earlier occasion, had availed of benefit of section 14 (2) of the Act, and it was admittedly a case of second default. There is no denial of the fact that notice of demand had been served by the landlords/respondents, and received by the petitioner/tenant. There is also no denial of the fact that at the time the notice was received, there had been a default in the payment of rent for preceding three consecutive months. It is also admitted that rent only of one month was sent by money order, after receipt of the notice and during the notice period.
(3) In face of these premises, established on record of the case, it was rightly held that the petitioner was not entitled to benefit second time under section 14(2) of the Act.
(4) Mr. Sharma has argued that by virtue of tender of rent by money order of one month, the chain of default for three consecutive months had broken, and thus it ceased to be a case of default, as contemplated by proviso to section 14(2) of the Act. The argument on the face of it is fallacious.
(5) The intention of the legislature is that the tenant can be given indulgence to the extent that in the event of second default, if after receipt of notice from the landlord, he clears up the arrears at least of the period prior to the notice and in any case of rent for three consecutive months; then he may not be liable to eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent, even if he had defaulted in payment of rent second time for three consecutive months.
(6) It could never have been the intention of the legislature that even in the event of second default, and even after service of notice by the landlord, the tenant can take advantage .of law by paying rent due for the period prior to service of notice partially, and plead breaking of the chain in the default of three months consecutive rent. The emphasis in clause (a) of proviso to section 14(1), is on payment of whole arrears of rent, within two months of receipt of notice of demand.
(7) Mr. Sharma placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment, reported as , Smt. Prakash Mehra Vs. K.L. Malhotra.
(8) I have gone through the judgment. I do not find even an observation enunciating the proposition which is being propounded by the learned counsel. All that the Court stated, in that case, was that the tenant would not forfeit his right to the benefit of section 14(2) of the Act, in case he does not pay the rent for the period subsequent to the notice period. It does not, in any way, lay down that even when the tenant does not pay the rent, which was due prior to the service of notice, then also he would be entitled to benefit of section 14(2).
(9) Mr. Sharma further argued that there was oral evidence of tender of rent, besides one month’s rent sent by money order. After concurrent findings of two courts, I do not think that in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioner can expect the Court to appraise evidence, as the petition can be considered only on a point of law, that also by showing error in exercise of jurisdiction or any such glaring illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which calls for interference by this Court, by way of judicial superintendence. In no case, can recourse to Article 227 be allowed, as a substitute for second appeal, which right stands repealed by amendment of Delhi Rent Control Act, in 1986, a part from the fact that even if right of second appeal was available, then also reappraisal of oral evidence could not have been undertaken.
(10) I, therefore, do not find any merit in this petition, and the same is dismissed with costs. Counsel’s fee is assessed at Rs. 500.00 .
(11) As a result, the eviction order is maintained. The petitioner shall hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondents/landlords within one month from today.