Sarla Goel & Ors vs Kishan Chand

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the respondent tenant did not commit a second default in rent payment under Section 14(1)(a) and Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court emphasized that since the tenant had tendered the rent via money order, which was refused by the landlord, the tenant was not liable for eviction. The Court distinguished the case from Atmaram Vs. Shakuntala Rani, clarifying that the circumstances were not analogous, thus affirming the High Court's ruling against eviction.