MOHAN C VANJANI Vs. SANT DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sant Dass, the respondent-landlord, brought a petition for the eviction of Mohan C. Vansani, the appellant-tenant under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 on the ground of personal bonafide need alleging that be was the owner of the premises and bonafide required it for his own use and of other members of his family dependent upon him and had no other suitable accommodation in which be could live. In this petition it was also alleged that the premises in question had been let to the appellant in 1958 but the rent had not been paid since 1-6-1966 for which separate proceedings were been taken. The petition for eviction was contested.

(2.) The respondent -landlord during The course of the eviction proceedings filed an application under section 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and claimed that an order be made for deposit of arrears of rent from 1-6-1966 at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month which was the agreed rate of rent and for deposit of future rent month by month at the same rate. Notice of this application was given to the appellant tenant who came forth with the plea that he had paid the agreed rent upto December, 1969 and that rent was due from him only from 1-1-1969. It was also pleaded by him that originally the contractual rent was Rs. 27.50 per month but was later increased to Rs. 40/- per month. The Additional Rent Controller after hearing the parties held that he did not find any evidence, prima facie, on the record which may show that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 80/. per month or that the arrears of rent had not been paid with effect from 1.6-1966. He, however, in view of the dispute about the period for which rent was due and the rate of rent, fixed interim rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month and directed that the tenant should deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month from 1-1-1969 within one month of the date of the order and future rent month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month also at the same rate. The landlord being aggrieved by that order preferred art appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 The Tribunal came to a contrary conclusion and observed as under :-

(3.) Thus it seems both the Additional Rent Controller and the Tribunal without giving a finding as to what was the agreed rate of rent or the contractual rent or the rent last paid fixed interim rent which, prima facie, appeared to them to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.