ANAND KAUR Vs. PRITAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point arising for determination in this appeal concerns the validity of a notice served by the landlady-appellant on the tenant-respondent and purporting to be one issued in accordance with the provisions contained in cl. (a) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act), and we may at the very outset reproduce the relevant provisions of that section:

(2.) The tenant-respondent has remained absent and unrepresented at the hearing and we have had the advantage of being addressed by Mr. Vinoo Bhagat, learned counsel for the appellant only.

(3.) It was not disputed before the High Court that in an earlier proceeding the tenant had taken advantage of the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, that he committed another default in the payment of rent which covered the period from 1-6-1973 to 30-11-1973 and that it was then that a notice dated 14-12-1973 was served on him. The notice stated: