LAWS(DLH)-1971-7-22

SHRI BHAGAT RAM Vs. DWARKA PERSHAD AND OTHERS

Decided On July 29, 1971
BHAGAT RAM Appellant
V/S
DWARKA PERSHAD AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the tenant under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act) and is directed against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 27th January, 1970, by which the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 3rd September, 1968, finally holding that the petition for eviction filed against the tenant-appellant before me was maintainable.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the petitioner before me is a tenant of the respondents in the premises situated at Hardhain Singh Road Karol Bagh, New Delhi on a rent of Rs. 7.25 per month. On 6th September, 1966, the respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction against the appellant on the grounds of bonafide personal necessity and acquisition of other residential premises being grounds specified in clauses (e) and (h) of the Act. It appears that a notice determining the tenancy had not been served on the tenant according to law and eventually Shri A. P. Chowdhary, Additional Rent Controller, passed the following order on 27th December, 1967:

(3.) Presumably, the landlords thereafter served. a notice to quit and on 18th March, 1968, he filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on the same grounds, namely bonafide personal necessity and acquision of other residential premises. It is significant to notice that in this petition, absolutely no mention had been made of previous proceedings or of the order of Mr. A. P. Chowdhary, Additional Rent Controller, quoted above. Notice of the petition was served on the tenant who took up the objection that the present petition was barred in view of the dismissal of the previous proceedings. The Additional Controller thereupon on 17th July, 1968, ordered the landlords to file a copy of the order of Mr. Chowdhary which was eventually filed and the landlords stated before me that they had on 14th August, 1968, deposited the amount of Rs. 45/- which had been ordered by Mr. Chowdhary. The tenant raised an objection to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that since Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply to proceedings before the Controller, he had no jurisdiction to pass an order permitting withdrawal of the petition with liberty to institute a fresh petition on the same cause of action and as such the order of Mr. Chowdhary was without jurisdiction and void and did not enable the landlords to maintain the present petition. The second ground was that payment of Rs. 45/- as costs was a condition precedent to the institution of fresh proceedings and the same had not been complied with and so the petition for eviction was not maintainable.