S SHARMA Vs. M L SAWHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution are that the petitioner took the house in dispute on rent of Rs. 1100.00 p. m. for a period of 2 years on January 25, 1975, after the permission from the Rent Controller for a limited tenancy was obtained. This limited tenancy was extended by another two years on the basis of a similar permission. At the end of the second term, the landlord-respondent moved an application on May 10, 1979 before the Controller under Order 21 Rule 11 for recovery of possession. Several objections were raised by the tenant against eviction. The main stand now taken by him is that the limited tenancy was fradulent and obtained by misrepresentation and that the petitioner was not a limited tenant but a tenant who cannot be evicted otherwise than on the grounds stated in the proviso to Sub-section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein the Act).

(2.) During the recovery proceedings the landlord made an application on July 24, 1979 that the petitioner had not paid rent since December 10, 1978 and that he be directed to deposit the entire arrears of rent/damages tending the disposal of his objections. The Rent Controller was of the view that such an application was not maintainable under Sub-section (1) or Subsection (2) of Section 15 of the Act but can be considered as an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. He, therefore, by his order of February 2, 1979 directed the petitioner to pay or deposit arrears of rent from December 10, 1978, to the last date of month of tenancy at the rate of Rs. 1100.00 p. m. within one month and to continue to pay future rent at the said rate from month to month by 15th of succeeding month. In case the order is not complied with, the objections filed by the respondent shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Hence the present petition.

(3.) It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 151 cannot be invoked because the respondent can recover his rent through the alternative remedy of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. Nor has the respondent been able to show that any manifest injustice has occurred so as to invite application of Section 151 G. P. G. The Act cannot be circumvented by resort to Section 151G.P.C. The order was therefore, without jurisdiction and this court is entitled to intervene under its supervisory jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution.