RAM NATH Vs. O P KHADRIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's appeal from the order of the rent control tribunal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act.)

(2.) The landlord brought an application for eviction of the tenant under section 14 (1) (e) read with section 25 B of the Act. The tenant made an application for leave to contest the eviction case. Leave was given. After leave was granted the landlord made an application under section 15 (2) requiring the controller to make an order against the tenant to deposit arrears of rent. The additional controller made the order under section 15 (2). The tenant was required to deposit all arrears of rent and future rent month by month. From this order the tenant appealed to the tribunal. Following my decision in R. K. Parikh v. Uma Verma the tribunal held that an application under section 15 (2) is not maintainable in the proceedings brought by the landlord under section 25B of the Act. He therefore dismissed the application.Now the landlord appeals to this court.

(3.) Chapter III-A was introduced by the Amendment Act 18 of 1976. (w.e.f. 1-12-1975). It provides fora "summary trial of certain applications" as the title suggests. Under this newly introduced procedure it is open to the landlord to make an application for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement under section 14 (1) (e). He can elect that his case be tried in accordance with the procedure provided in section 25B. The landlord in the present case so elected. Now in such a case the procedure is laid down in chapter III-A. The tenant has to obtain leave. On leave being granted the tenant can contest the application. But if leave is refused the controller passes an order for recovery of possession. From the order of recovery of possession made by the controller no appeal or second appeal lies. A revision to the High Court is provided. In R. K. Parikh's case I held that no appeal lies to the Tribunal from a case heard and decided under section 25B. The Supreme Court has now expressly approved Parikh's case (see Vinod Kumar v. Narain Devi).