MRS. D. DAVID Vs. MISS R. MUKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent alleging to be the landlord filed an application against the appellant alleging her to be a tenant for her eviction from the premises. One of the grounds urged for eviction was nonpayment of rent under proviso (a) to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter called the Act). The Controller thereupon passed an order under section 15(1) of the Act asking the alleged tenant to deposit the rent in terms of section 15(1). The tenant disputed her liability to make such a deposit on the ground that she was not a tenant at all but the owner of the house. The question whether the respondent was a landlord and the appellant a tenant had therefore to be gone into by the Controller at the end of which the Controller rejected the objection of the alleged tenant and asked her to deposit rent to Court at the rate of Rs. 15/- under section 15(1). The tenant's appeal was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal. Hence this second appeal under section 39 of the Act. Such a second appeal lies only on "some substantial question of law".

(2.) The question for decision, therefore, is whether the decision of the Controller regarding the relationship of the landlord and tenant raises a substantial question of law within the meaning of section 39 of the Act.

(3.) It is to be noted that the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Controller in evicting a tenant under section 14 or in fixing the standard rent under section 9 of the Act is based on the assumption that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists. He is not required by any provision of the Act to decide the existence of this relationship, On the contrary, sub-section (4) of section 50 of the Act expressly states as follows :-