JAG MOHAN LAL Vs. TARA CHAND VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') challenging the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 5th January, 1980 confirming the order of eviction passed by the Additional Controller under section 14(l)(a) of the Act.

(2.) The appellant has raised three questions :

(3.) The relevant facts for the decision of these questions are : The respondent-landlord sent a notice of demand dated 6/11/1975 to the appellant-tenant. The main controversy centres round this notice and therefore it is desireable to re-produce the same: To Shri Jagmohan, S/o Shri Jagdishwar Prashad, XVI/149, Joshi Road, KarolBagh, New Delhi. Dear Sir, Under instructions from and on behalf of my client Shri Tara Chand Verma.S/o Shri JagganNath, resident of XVI/liO, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, I serve you with following notice :- 1. That my client Shri Tara Chand is the owner of premises bearing No. XVI/140, and 150 (new) Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, having purchased the same in auction from the Managing Officer, Jam Nagar, House, New Delhi. The conveyance deed has been issued and he is deemed to be the ownerw.e.f.19/9/1972. 2. That your father Shri Jagdishwar Prashad was allottee of premises No. XVI/149, Joshi Road, KarolBagh, New Delhi, under the Custodian and was paying Rs. 8.00 as licence fee. Shri Jagdishwar Prasad, your father has since died. The Rehabilitation Department has declined to substitute your name as allottee instead of your father. Your position is, therefore, now of an unauthorised occupant and you are liable to pay damages for use and occupation to my above said client@ Rs. 16.00 (sixteed) per month for the last three years amounting to Rs. 576.00 which please pay within a week of the receipt of this notice. 3. In case, you satisfy my client that you have been a tenant under the Custodian Managing Officer (which fact is denied) then you should pay a rent which your father was paying to my above said client for the last three years. In case, you prove to be a tenant: then your tenancy which is monthly and commences from the 19th of each English calendar month .is terminated. 4. You should, therefore, handover peaceful and vacant possession of the said premises to my above said client on the 18/12/1975 or on such other date on which the tenancy expires according to you. 5. In case of your failture, to pay the amount or to handover possession of the of the premises, legal proceedings will be against you at your risk and costs. Please taken notice accordingly. Carban copy retained. Yours faithfully, sd/- Pt. Jagdish Chandra Advocate. 'In reply, the appellant admitted that he was the tenant. He however asserted that nothing was due from him as rent and .that he was not under any obligation, to pay the amount of rent and handover the possession to the landlord. The landlord therefore filed a petition for the eviction of the appellant on various grounds on 7/1/1978 but for purposes of this appeal only surviving ground is under clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14oftheA.t. It is alleged by the landlord that renrs were due to him from the appellant-tenant with effect from 19/9/1972 at Rs. 8.00 per month which the tenant failed to pay in spite of notice of demand dated 6/11/1975. The appellant tenant in his written statement pleads that he had paid uptodate rent and that notice of demand was invalid. On 3/4/1978 the Controller adjourned the eviction proceedings for arguments relating to the deposit of rent under section 15(1) of the Act to 22/5/1978 on which date the arguments were heard, documents were also filed by the partie and the case was adjourned for orders to 26/5/1978. On 26/5/1978 it appears that none was present and under section 15(1) of the Act directing the appellant-tenant to deposit arrears of rent with effect from 1/1/1975 within one month from that date and to continue to deposit month by month by 15th of each succeeding month at the rate of Rs. 8.00 per month was passed. By the said order order the landlord was also called upon to furnish better particulars will, regard to his ground of substantial damage to the premises. The order was announced in open court and the case was adjourned to 19/7/1978 on which date it appears that the particulars of substantial damage were filed, from the order sheet it further appears that the parties said that they were under the impression that no order under section 15(1) of the Act has been passed. Thereafter the appellant-tenant deposited all arrears of rent on 24/7/1978 and deposited monthly rents at Rs. 8.00 per month during the pendency if the eviction proceedings. Deposit of rents is not disputed but the contention of the landlord is that the order under section 15(1) of the Act was not complied with as the deposit was made on 24/7/1978 i.e. beyond one month from the date of the order under section 15(1) of the Act. The Additional Controller held that there was no comliance with order under section 15(1) of the Act and therefore the tenant was liable to be evicted. He accordingly passed the order of eviction. He also held that the notice of demand was valid. On appeal the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Additional Controller.