AMALMALSIND Vs. RAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred to the Division Bench is whether an order passed under any of the first four subsections of section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) directing the tenant to pay the past, the present and the future rent of the premises to the landlord which has ceased to operate due to the termination of the eviction petition either by its dismissal or by the passing of an order for eviction, is revived when in the appeal the dismissal is set aside and the case is remanded for rehearing under order XLI Rule 23 or under the inherent powers (now Rule 23A) of the Code of Civil Procedure. THE FACTS :

(2.) S.a.o. 103 of 1973 : 23-1-1968 The landlord filed an application for eviction of the appellant tenant under clause (e) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Act. 6-9-1969 The order under section 15(2) directing the tenant appellant to deposit arrears of rent as also the current and future rent of Rs. 25 per month was passed. 9-2-1970 An application of the landlord for striking off the defence of the tenant because of the defaults committed by the tenant in payment of rent was not granted and the delay in payment of rent was condoned. 13-2-1970 The eviction petition was dismissed because the landlord had failed to prove that the premises had been let out for residential purposes, though the other requirements of clause (e) of the proviso to section 14(1) had been proved. 26-4-1971 The Rent Control Tribunal remanded the case for rehearing in which the landlord was to be allowed to adduce additional evidence to prove the purpose of the letting. 19-5-1971 Another application under section 15(7) by the landlord for striking off the defence of the tenant was made on the ground that the remand order had restored the eviction petition as it stood on 13-2-1970, the date of dismissal, because the dismissal had been set aside and the tenant had committed further defaults in payment of rent after 1970. 7-5-1972 Another application by the landlord under.section 15(7) complaining of further defaults by the tenant was made. 21-8-1972 Shri V. S. Aggarwal, Additional Controller, held that the order, dated 6-9-1969, which had been passed under section 15(2) and which had ceased to exist when the eviction petition was dismissed, was revived when the case was remanded. Since the tenant had committed defaults in payment of rent in obedience to the order under section 15(2) even after the date of remand, the case was fit one for striking out the defence of the tenant under section 15(7). 18-1-1973 Shri G. C. Jain, Rent Control Tribunal, agreed with the view of the Additional Controller that the order under section 15(2) was revived by the remand and the defaults in payment of rent by the tenant in pursuance of the said order after the remand justified the striking out of the tenant under section 15(7). The appeal was, therefore, dismissed. Hence this second appeal on a substantial question of law under section 39 of the Act.

(3.) S.a.o. 190 of 1973 : 27-8-1966 Petition by respondent landlord for eviction of the appcllant tenant on two grounds, namely, (i) non-payment of arrears of rent, and (ii) subletting of the premises, was filed. 18-3-1966 Order under section 15(1) read with section 15(3) passed. 16-5-1970 Defence of the tenant was struck out by the Additional Controller "under section 15(7) of the Act for failure to comply with the order under section 15(1) in time. 18-5-1970 Order of eviction passed. 9-11-1971 The Rent Control Tribunal set aside both the orders and remanded the case for a rehearing. 16-1-1973 Another application under section 15(7) of the Act made by the landlord in view of the defaults in payment of rent after the remand. 27-4-1973 Defence of the tenant struck out and order for eviction passed under clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub- section (1) of section 14 of the Act. 29-5-1973 The Rent Control Tribunal held that on remand the order under section 15(1) of the Act had stood revived and the tenant was bound to comply with the same. Since he did not comply with it, his defence was rightly struck out and the eviction was justified.