SHRI BHOJ DUTTA Vs. SHRI BRIJ NARAIN BAGAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The appeals arise out of an application for ejectment as moved by the landlord against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. The additional Rent Controller accepted the application for ejectment and granted an order for recovery of possession in favour of the landlord on the ground that the tenant had previously obtained the benefit of the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and was therefore not entitled to get the benefit again. In the course of the case the landlord appeared as A.W. I and made a statement that he had previously filed an application for ejectment of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent but that application was unsuccessful as the tenant had paid the arrears of rent. He, however, stated that the rent had not been paid from Ist August 1964 inspite of service of demand which is Exhibit A-2. The order passed in the previous application for ejectment was produced by the landlord as Exhibit A-4.

(2.) Against this decision of the Additional Rent Controller, an appeal was taken by the tenant to the Rent Control Tribunal, who reversed the order of the Additional District Judge on the ground that the certified copy of the order passed in the previous case, Exhibit A-4, did not show that there was any benefit granted to the tenant under Section 14 (2) of the Act and hence the impugned order had to be set aside on the ground that the proviso to Section 14 (2) was not applicable so as to bar the tenant's right to make a deposit of rent under Section 15 (1) of the Act. It was held, he was entitled to get the benefit under that Section. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Controller for passing an order under Section 15 (1) of the Act.

(3.) There are two appeals before me now against the order -of the Rent Control Tribunal. The appeal by the landlord seeks the restoration of the order of the Additional Rent Controller while the appeal by the tenant seeks to set aside the order remanding the case on the submission that there is no power to remaind the case back at all after it has been, decided that the tenant was entitled to the benefit under Section 14 (2) of the Act.