SUBHASH MEHTA Vs. S P CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the tenant- appellant under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated August 18, 1979 by which his appeal was dismissed and the order of the Additional Controller dated February 14, 1978 was affirmed finally maintaining the order of eviction passed against him on the ground of non-payment of rent. The appellant is a tenant under the respondent in a portion of property at D-32, South Extension Part II, New Delhi, on a monthly rent of Rs. 800.00 besides electricity and ter charges. The respondent served a notice dated November 27, 1972, demanding arrears of rent from September 1. 1972, and not getting the response, instituted eviction application on March 13, 1973, giving rise to the present appeal, for eviction of the appellant on various ground s including the ground of non-payment of rent specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. It was held that the appellant-tenant had not paid rent since September 1, 1972 in spite of notice of demand dated November 27, 1972. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings the Controller on 1.6.1973 passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Act directing the appellant to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 800.00 per month from September 1, 1972 within one month from the date of the order and to continue to deposit future monthly rent at the said rate by the 15th of the succeeding month. It appears that the appellant- tenant deposited all arrears of rent in accordance with the said order under Section 15(1) of the Act, but committed default with regard to deposit of future rent every month within time specially with respect to rent for the months of September and October, 1973. Instead of depositing rent of these two months by the 15th of the succeeding month, the rent, it seems, was deposited on December 1, 1973. The respondent filed an application for striking off defence under Section 15(7) of the Act. The Controller struck out the defence but an appeal the order striking off the defence was set aside by the Tribunal by order dated July 30, 1974 and the appeal filed by the respondent in this Court was dismissed. The Additional Controller finally by his order dated February 14, 1978 held that the appellant had not paid rent since 1.9.72 inspite of notice of demand dated 27.11.72 and has failed to deposit rent as per order under section 15(1) of the Act. The Controller therefore passed an order of eviction against the appellant on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Tribunal and hence this second appeal.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant argues that the application of the respondent for striking off the defence of the appellant under section 15 (7) of the Act was dismissed by the Tribunal which order was confirmed by this Court and therefore the appellant did not commit any default of the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act. He further says that arrears of rent admittedly were deposited in compliance with the order under section 15(1) of the Act and there was only a technical default by failing to deposit rent for September and October 1973. He further argues that the appellant- tenant having complied with the order under Section 15(1) of the Act relating to the arrears of rents, no order of eviction can be passed against him under section 14(l)(a) of the Act.

(3.) Section 14(l)(a), 14(2) and 15 of the Act pertaining to eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent are as under :