INDER SAIN MADHOK Vs. PHOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by landlord under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) against the order of the Kent Control Tribunal dated the 18th April, 1970 by which it accepted the appeal of the tenant and set aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 17.5-69, who had held that the application filed by the tenant was barred by limitation.

(2.) The facts are that one Shrimati Puran Devi was owner of the premises in dispute namely shop No. 4-12/11, New Market, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, consisting of one room and a verandah in front of it. On 2-8-1960 the said premises were taken on a monthly rent of Rs. 60.00 by the respondent-tenant. The lease deed provided that the rent would be paid on 10th of every month and the tenant was entitled to rebate of Rs 2-50 per month if the rent was paid in time. The respondent tenant was not entitled to sub-let the shop or to creme any licence thereof. This property was later on purchased by the present appellant lnder Sain Madhok. The respondent-tenant continued to pay the rent as mentioned in deed of 2nd Aug., 1950 to the appellant. Later on it seems that the respondent-tenant requested the appellant to cover the verandah in front of the room and a mention of this is to be found in the letter of 23-2-962 Exhibit R.W. 714 written by the tenant to the landlord. After the verandah had been so covered another deed was drawn up dated 8-9-66. In the said deed, it was stated that the tenant would pay monthly rent of Rs. 12.00 per month and was not entitled to any rebate. He was prohibited from sub-letting the shop but was permitted to allow a tailor to sit thereon in connection with his work. The said deed, dated 8-9-1966 is Exhibit R.W. 7/5. On 23-6-1967 the respondent-tenant filed an application for fixation of standard rent of the premises. Objection was taken by the appellant-landlord that the application for fixation of standard rent is barred by time. The Additional Rent Controller by his order dated 17-5-1969 found that the respondent-tenant was a tenant since 1960 and the execution of the deed dated 8-9-1966 did not amount to any breach in his tenancy and consequently the tenant was not competent to move an application for fixation of standard rent as the same was barred by limitation.

(3.) An appeal was taken by the tenant before the Rent Control Tribunal who has held that a new tenancy was created by means of a rent note dated 8-9-1966 and that the old tenancy created by means of rent note dated 2-8-1960 stood determined by implied surrender. He consequently held that the application dated 23-8-1967 was well within time. He, therefore, accepted the appeal of the tenant and remanded the case back to the Additional Rent Controller for disposing of the application for fixation of standard rent in accordance with law. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.