MADANLAL BHATIA Vs. RATAN SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petitio under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 3.3.1980 passed by the 3rd Additional Rent Controller u/s 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("the Act").

(2.) The respondent- landlord filed an eviction petition u/s 14(1)(e) read with Section 25 B of the Delhi Rent. Contral (Amendment) Act, 197o for the recovery of possession. The petitioner-tenant filed an application for leave to contest u/s 25B(5) raising various questions of law and fact. Tile leave to contest was granted by order dated 20.2.1978. During the pendency of the proceedings the landlord moved an application u/s 15(2) of the Act on 81 1979. The said application was contested on various grounds and finally it was allowed by order dated.1.3.1980 and the petitioner herein was directed to deposit the arrears of rent and future lent as indicated in the order. It is against this order ,hat the present petition has been filed.

(3.) The only question involved in this case is whether an application u/s 15(2) of the Act is maintainable during the pendency of the proceedings u/s 25B of the said Act before the Controller on an application being filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant u/s 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act. There are three decisions of this Court which we will refer to later to the effect that such an application is not maintainable. However, in view of the observations of their lordships, of the Supreme Court in Santosh Mehta v. Om Prakash, 1980 Raj. L R. 355, the learned Single Judge (Kirpal J.) was of the opinion that the law laid down by this Court in the three decisions no longer holds good and has referred the case to a larger Bench.