RAKESH KUMAR Vs. HINDUSTAN EVEREST TOOL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted in both the matters and the appeals are disposed of hereunder.

(2.) The facts in both these cases are identical. These appeals are directed against the judgment and orders of the High Court of Delhi, dated the 8th October, 1985 setting aside the order of eviction affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. In order to appreciate the controversy it may be mentioned here briefly that the appellant is the owner of a flat in Dohil Chambers, 46 Nehru Place, New Delhi. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant had duly appointed Shri Hardev Dohil as the general attorney for and on his behalf to do all the acts and deeds including renting out the premises in question. Shri H. Dohil entered into an agreement of lease with respondent No.1 Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd., to take the premises situated at Nehru Place. Clause 21 of the said agreement amongst others specifically provided that the respondent herein would not be in arrears of rent and there was a specific obligation imposed upon the respondent by virtue of the agreement between the parties to regularly pay the rent of the premises without default and without notice from the appellant. The respondent started defaulting, according to the appellant, not only towards the arrears of rent but also towards payment of maintenance and other charges. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent was occupying a number of flats in the said building and the appellant further alleges that on one pretext or the other, respondent had been avoiding to pay their admitted liability under the terms of the agreement. It is alleged by the appellants that the respondent was using a number of air-conditioners which had put the builder in great difficulties and it had come to a situation where the electric supply to the building was disconnected. It was under the orders of the High Court of Delhi and trial Courts that the electricity could be got restored and the respondent was directed to make certain payments. It is alleged by the appellants that the respondent had not made payment of rent despite various notices issued.

(3.) The appellant had filed a petition under Section 14(1)(a) and (J) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, hereinafter called as 'the Act'. The respondent filed a written statement to the said petition and took up the stand that rent was attached by M.C.D. and had also raised certain frivolous objections. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant had verified from the Corporation and found that the respondent had been wrongfully withholding the payment of the rent of the appellant. The learned Additional Rent Controller during the pendency of main petition under Section 15(c) of the Act, had directed the respondent to deposit the arrears within one month from the date of order and to continue depositing the monthly rent by 15th of each succeeding month. The respondent did not deposit the arrears of rent and filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal and even after passing of the said Order, he did not deposit the arrears of rent and filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court dismissed the said appeal. In the meantime, it may be mentioned that the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act proceeded and the Rent Controller duly passed an order of eviction on that, which was upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal. In appeal the High Court has set aside the said order on the ground that there was no proper notice of demand to pay arrears of rent in terms of proviso to Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. It is from this order of the High Court these matters have come to this Court. But, in order to complete the narration of events it must be mentioned that against the striking off of the defence of the respondent in default of payment of arrears of rent which was duly confirmed by the High Court the appellant had come up in Special Leave Petition to this Court being SLP(C) No. 8120/84 and this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 18-11-1984. It is important in the background of the, facts of this case to emphasise that so far as striking off the defence is concerned, by the order of dismissal that order stands confirmed i.e., the striking off the defence was validly done because of the failure to pay the arrears of rent. This is an important aspect of the matter.