SUMITRA RANI SONDHI Vs. BENNET COLLEMAN AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal from order dated December 21, 1965 of the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, raises the question : Whether the appellant has already obtained the benefit under sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act in respect of the premises in dispute and has again made a default in the payment of rent of those premises for three consecutive months and is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the said provisions in these proceedings?

(2.) On April 21, 1960, an application was filed by the respondent against one Shri Ram, deceased, the husband of Smt. Sumitra Rani, appellant No. 1, and father of appllants Nos. 2 to 8, under proviso (a) to section 14 (2) read with section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein called 'the Act) for his eviction on the ground, inter alia, of non-payment of rent from November, 1956 up to March 31, 1960 at the rate of Rs 45 per month. Shri Mast Ram, deceased was an employee in one of the associated concerns of the respondent. The premises in dispute, it is stated, had been given to him on rent, when he was in such employment, for his residence during the time he remained in that employment. His employment was terminated on April 22, 1953 and his right of residence in terms of the agreement Is said to have come to an end. He was asked to vacate, but he did not do so on one pretext or the other. There appear to have been constant defaults on the side of Mast Ram in payment of rent. Litigation started for his eviction in August, 196 when a suit was filed, which was subsequently withdrawn.

(3.) It was then that the said application for his eviction was filed on April 21, 1960 under section 14 (1) proviso (a) and section 22 of the Act. 'An order for eviction would have been passed in the normal course, but the tenant agreed to pay all the arrears and made a statement in court on May 3, 1960 whereby he admitted the arrears of rent claimed to be due at therateofRs.40per month. He, therefore, 'prayed that the order for his eviction be passed on the condition that if arrears of rent were paid by him within one month to the respondent or were deposited in court, the order for eviction would stand cancelled. This was accepted by the respondent's counsel. x x x orders of eviction to be madein the said terms He further added that the rate of rent being Rs 45 per month, he will take separate proceedings for the recovery of Rs. 5 per month. The learned Additional Controller, then passed an order for the eviction of Shri Mast Ram, tenant, on the ground of non-payment of rent on the condition that if the- arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 40.per month were paid by June 3, 1960 against receipt or were deposited in court, the order of eviction shall be deemed to have been statisfied. This order was made on May 3, 1960. As the rent was paid, Shri Mast Ram was not evicted.