MADAN LAL BHATIA Vs. RATTANSEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under article 227 of the Constitution, of India, is directed against the order dated 3.3.1980 passed by the 3rd Addl. Rent Controller under Section 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The brief facts leading to "this petition are, as under.

(2.) The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 for the recovery of possession. The petitioner-tenant filed anapplication for leave to contest under Section 25-B(5) raising various questions of law and fact. The leave to contest was granted by order dated 20.2.1978. During the pendency of the proceedings the respondent-landlord moved an application under Section 15(2) of the Act on 8.1.1979. The said application was contested on various grounds and finally it was allowed by order dated 3.3.1980 and the petitioner herein was directed to deposit the arrears of rent and future rent as indicated in the order. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) The only question involved in this case is whether an application under Section 15 (2) of the Act is maintainable during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 25-B of the said Act before the Controller on an application being filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25-B 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 the case of Santosh Mehta v. 0m Prakash, 1980 Rajdhani Law Reporter 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.