KAMALA BAKSHI Vs. KHAIRATI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal of landlady, by special leave, is directed against the order of the High Court of Delhi in C.R. No. 1002 of 1996 dated November 28, 1996. This case had a chequered career. The present controversy is an off-shoot of the earlier litigation between the parties. To appreciate the question involved in this case, it will be necessary to set out briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal.

(2.) On March 2, 1960, the respondent who is a tailor, occupied premises No. 26, Faiz Bazar, Darya Ganj, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises') of H. S. Sharma, the father of the appellant. The said Sharma and the respondent entered into an arrangement pursuant to which he executed a document, Ex. P-1, on March 28, 1960 (Ext. P-1, however, bears the date June 28, 1960), purporting to join as Manager of the tailoring business said to be of H. S. Sharma, which was being carried on in the suit premises. The said arrangement could not continue for long. On June 10, 1966, the said Sharma filed a suit claiming mandatory injunction against the respondent on the ground that he was a licensee in the suit premises in the capacity of Manager, which having been terminated he had no right to remain there and that he be directed to remove himself from the premises and further to restrain him from entering into the suit premises. The respondent contested the suit denying that he was a licensee. He pleaded that he was carrying on his tailoring business therein as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-, Ext. P-1, it was alleged, was executed to circumvent the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') and that it was not a valid document. The trial Court accepted the case of H. S. Sharma and decreed the suit, as prayed for, on December 21, 1974. The respondent went in appeal before the learned District Judge who reversed the decree of the trial Court believing the case set up by the respondent that he was a tenant of the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. Challenging the judgment of the learned District Judge dated April 16, 1979, Rajinder Kumar Sharma son of H. S. Sharma filed R.S.A. No. 29 of 1980 in the High Court of Delhi. The finding of the Appellate Court that the said Sharma was the landlord and the respondent was the tenant, was upheld but the quantum of rent payable by the respondent was modified to Rs. 140/- by the High Court on September 5, 1991. In the meanwhile, the said Sharma died leaving the appellant and her brother Rajinder Kumar Sharma as his legal representatives. The appellant claims title to the suit premises on the basis of a family settlement.

(3.) On August 19, 1992 the appellant issued notice to the respondent demanding rent for the period from March 28, 1960 to July 28, 1992 amounting to Rs. 54,320/-. The respondent paid rent for the period of three years prior to 1-9-1992 and disowned his liability to pay arrears for the earlier period. The appellant filed petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act for eviction of the respondent from the suit premises for non-payment of arrears of rent for the said period in the Court of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The respondent pleaded that the arrears of rent for the period of three years immediately preceding the demand notice dated August 19, 1992 were paid by him to the appellant; with regard to the rest of the period, it was pleaded, that the arrears were not legally recoverable. By its order dated September 4, 1996, the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that as the respondent had paid arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 140/- per month for the period of three years immediately preceding the demand notice and the arrears of rent for the rest of the period was not legally recoverable, there was no cause of action for the appellant to file the petition. Against the said order dated September 4, 1996, the appellant filed C.R. No. 1002 of 1996 in the High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed on November 28, 1996. It is the correctness of that order of the High Court that is canvassed in this appeal.