M M CHAWLA Vs. J S SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Man Mohan Chawla was since before 1958 a tenant of certain premises in Delhi belonging to J. S. Sethi. The contractual rent of the premises was Rs. 160. 00 per month. Sethi filed a petition under Section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for an order in ejectment against Chawla on the plea that the latter had committed default in paying rent for seven months consecutively pursuent to a direction of the Rent Controller, Chawla deposited the rent claimed, and the amount deposited was paid over to Sethi and the proceeding was disposed of.

(2.) Chawla again committed default for three consecutive months, and Sethi commenced another proceeding under Section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for an order in ejectment. Chawla denied the claim that he had committed default in payment of rent. He pleaded that he had on 19/03/1963 sent to Sethi Rs. 320. 00 by a postal money order which Sethi had refused to accept. Sethi denied that a money order sent by Chawla was brought to him by the postal peon. Chawla also pleaded that the contractual rent was excessive and that the rent of the premises let to him could not exceed Rs. 50. 00 per month and prayed that standard rent may be fixed by the Controller. The Controller rejected that contention of Chawla and. passed an order in ejectment. The order of ejectment passed by the Controller was confirmed in appeal by the Rent Control tribunal, and a second appeal to the High court was also unsuccessful. Chawla has appealed to this court with special leave.

(3.) In support of the appeal counsel for Chawla contended : (i) that the Controller was bound to determine the standard rent of the premises in the proceeding instituted by Sethi and since the Controller failed to do so the order in ejectment was illegel : (ii) the court below were in error in holding that Chawla could not obtain the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ; (iii) that the legal presumption arising from the despatch of a postal money order for Rs. 320. 00 addressed to Sethi had been ignored by all the courts; and (iv) that Chawla had made a deposit of rent for three months and if that deposit be taken into account Chawla was not in arrears for three consecutive months at the date of the initiation of the proceeding.