MADAN LAL SETH Vs. AMAR SINGH BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the Judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated March 10, 1978 which dismissed the appeal from the Additional Controller's order dated 18th May, 1977. The respondent-landlord let out portions of first floor and second floor of House No. 1/2, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi at the monthly rent of Rs. 225.00 besides electricity and water charges to the appellant in 1956. On 13th July, 1971 he filed a petition for eviction on ground of non-payment of rent. An order under Section 15 (1) of the Act was passed by the Controller on 20th October, 1971 requiring the tenant to pay arrears of rent and future rent. An appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed by Rent Control Tribunal. The tenant deposited the rents complying with the order under Section 15(1) of the Act with the result the eviction petition was dismissed on 25th August, 1973 holding that the tenant has availed the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act. The landlord thereafter on 5th June, 1974 filed another petition on the ground of non-payment of rent but it was dismissed being premature.

(2.) On 4th October, 1976 the landlord served a notice of demand upon the tenant requiring him to pay the arrears of rent from 1st March, 1976. The tenant did not comply with the notice. The eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act was filed on 5th January, 1977. No order under Section 15(1) of the Act was passed. The additional Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on 18th May, 1977, on the ground that the tenant has already availed the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act and that he had defaulted in payment of rent for three consecutive months. The appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed by the Tribunal on 10th March, 1978. Hence this second appeal under Section 39 of the Act.

(3.) The principal contention of the appellant-tenant is that notice of demand dated 4th October, 1976 was never served upon him and therefore the eviction petition was liable to be dismissed. The other contention is that passing of an order under Section 15(1) of the Act is mandatory in proceedings for recovery of possession specified insection 14(1) (a) of the Act and that no order having been passed by the Controller, the entire proceedings are had and no eviction order can be passed.