SHRI MAHINDER KUMAR Vs. SHRI PADAM CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision of this appeal turns on the construction of sub-section (6) of section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) in the light of sub-section 15 (1) thereof and also of sub-section (2) of section 14.

(2.) The appellant is a tenant while the respondent is the landlord of the premises on Rs. 125/- per month fixed as standard rent for each calendar month. On 8-8-1966 the landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant had failed to pay arrears of rent after notice within the meaning of section 14(1)(a) of the Act. On 3-11-1966 the Controller ordered the tenant under section 15(1) to pay the arrears of rent plus future rent before the 15th of each month. On 17-9-1966, the Controller held that the tenant was not entitled to get credit for the amount deposited by him towards the payment of arrears of rent in another Controller's Court. On 6-12-1966, therefore, the Controller struck off the defence of the tenant and passed an order of eviction against him acting under sub-section (7) of section 15. The appeal filed by the tenant against the order asking him to deposit the arrears of rent without giving him the credit for the deposit already made was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 8-5-1967 as barred by time. On 19-5-1967, therefore, the landlord applied to the Controller under section 42 of the Act for execution of the order of eviction. The tenant objected on the ground that the Rent Control Tribunal had stayed the proceedings in the Controller's Court, during the pendency of the tenant's appeal before it. The order passed by the Controller for the eviction of the tenant was a nullity as it violated the stay order and was not, therefore, executable. The objection was dismissed on 6-10-1967. On 10-6-1968 the Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal. But on 9-4-1969 the second appeal was allowed by this Court in a decision Mahendra Kumar Khandelwal v. Padam Chand Jain.

(3.) In the order dated 9-4-1969 this Court held as follows :-