S LABH SINGH Vs. JAGAN NATH BAHL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Labh Singh, appellant, who was a refugee from West Pakistan, is in occupation of the premises, in dispute which form part of a property which was evacuee property. It was allotted to him by the Custodian, who had fixed Rs. 10/- per month as its rent. According to the respondent-landlord who purchased the property in a public auction held on August 20, 1956, this rent was very low and unreasonable, and had been fixed merely to help the refugees. He filed an application for fixation of standard rent; which was pending at the time when he filed his eviction application on September 19, 1964, against the appellant tenant under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the grounds (a) that the appellant had not paid rent from June 1, 1961 and a sum of Rs. 390/- was due from him as arrears of rent till August 31, 1964, which he had not paid inspite of repeated demands. A sum of Rs. 290/- sent by the appellant tenant to the landlord was said to have been adjusted in the previous rent and (b) that the respondent-landlord, owner of the premises let for residential purposes, bonafide required the same for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family dependent on him, as he had not other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The appellant tenant in his written statement replied that the Custodian had fixed the rent of the premises in dispute at Rs. 7.25 per month at which rate the rent had been offered by him to the respondent-landlord on several occasions, but the latter had been insisting upon payment at a higher rate, which according to the appellant, he was not entitled to demand. The appellant had sent to the respondent-landlord a sum of Rs. 290/- by money order on March 14, 1964 as rent for the entire period 1961 to April 4, 1964. It was under these circumstances that the appellant claimed that he had paid the tent, but the respondent. landlord himself had not been willing to accept the same. The appellant further stated that the rent for The period after April 1964 up to February 1965 worked to Rs. 72 25, which he was prepared to pay or deposit. He, therefore, asserted that the ground of non-payment of rent under clause (a) of the proviso to section 14(1) of The Delhi Rent Control Act was not available to the respondent-landlord. In the replication, the respondent landlord denied that the rate of rent was Rs. 7.25 per month. The rent, he said, was due at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month, which the appellant had "been paying previously". Although, the Additional Controller before whom the proceedings were pending for the recovery of possession of premises on grounds one of which was ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14. viz-non-payment of rent inspite of demand notice, was required by section 15(l) of the Act, to make an order directing tenant to pay or deposit within one month an amount calculated at the rate of rent, which was last paid, he did not make such order. No order was made even under section 15(3) of the Act, if it be taken that there was a dispute between the parties as to the amount of the rent payable by the tenant whether it should be calculated at the rate of Rs. 7-25 or Rs. 10/- per month. It appears that the tenant having paid the arrears of rent up to April 1964 and he having offered to pay rent for the subsequent period, the landlord did not consider it worthwhile to press for an order either under section 15 (1) or under section 15 (3) of the Act.

(2.) On June 6, 1967 in standard rent proceedings started by the respondent-landlord, the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 40/- per month with effect from May 12, 1960. The appeal against the said order fixing the standard rent was dismissed. It was then that on September 26, 1968 the respondent-landlord filed his application under section 15 (2) of the Act contending that although the rate of rent fixed by the Custodian, was Rs. 725 per month, the Additional Controller by his order dated June 6. 1967 had fixed the standard rent at Rs. 40/- per month, with effect from May 12, 1960 and as the appellant had rot paid rent from the said date at that rate, a sum of Rs. 3550/- had become due from him as arrears of rent till May 11, 1968 after adjusting the amounts received by the respondent- landlord in the meanwhile. It was, therefore, prayed that an order under section 15(2) of the Act be passed directing the respondent to deposit all the arrears of rent and future rent month by month in accordance with law. In reply to this application, the appellant- tenant stated that although the Custodian has fixed rent at Rs. 7.25 per month the parties had agreed to increase the same to Rs. 10/. per month, which was the rate at which the rent had been last received by the respondent. landlord from the appellant tenant. It was further stated that the appellant landlord was not entitled to charge Rs. 40/- per month, although the same had been fixed as the standard rent by the Additional Controller. The respondent-landlord was said be entitled to charge Rs. 10/- per month only Which was the agreed rate of rent and which he had been realising from him previously. He expressed his willingness to deposit the arrears of rent at the agreed rate of rent of Rs. 10/- per month, but only for the period of three years from the date of the application. The Additional Controller held that the standard rent having been fixed at Rs. 40/- per month with effect from May 12, 1960, the rent at that rate was legally recoverable by the respondent landlord. He further held that the landlord could claim the rent at that rate within three years from the date of the order fixing the standard rent. He, therefore, ordered that the appellant should pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month with effect from May 12, 1960 to June 30, 1968 at the rate of Rs. 40/-per month after deducting the rent already paid at the rate of Rs. 7.25 par month within one month from the date of his order and future rent month by month by the 15th day of the succeeding month at that rate. In appeal, the learned Rent Control Tribunal concurred with the Additional Controller and dismissed the appeal with costs. The tenant under these circumstances has come up to this court in second appeal.

(3.) The eviction application filed by the respondent on September 19, 1964 is based on two grounds, viz. the grounds specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, and another specified In clause(e) of the said proviso. So far as the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent inspite of demand, specified in clause(a) is concerned an order should have been made by the Controller, under sub-section (1) of section 15, or, If there was any dispute as to the amount of rent payable, under sub-section (3) of section 15. Finding no order under those sub-sections, the respondent-landlord made an application under section 15 (2). On September 26, 1954 as the ground of bonafide requirement of the premises for personal occupation for residence specified in clause (a) of the proviso to section 14 (1), which is a ground other than that referred to in sub-section 15 (1) was one of the grounds on which his eviction application was based and as the appellant-tenant was contesting the claim for his eviction. On this, the Controller was required under section 15(2) to make an order on the tenant to pay to the landlord the amount of rent legally recoverable from him.