AMAR KAUR Vs. UMRAO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi which affirmed an order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, rejecting the contention of the appellant that without recording of evidence on the admitted facts the application of the respondent-tenant under Section 20 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 should be dismissed as barred by time under the provisions of Rule 4 of the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959, and the case was posted for recording of evidence to find out the date of the completion of the building. The appellant lant-landlady had contended that the building had been completed in February, 1967 whereas the tenant had contended that the building had been completed in the first week of September, 1967.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Janak Singh, Advocate on behalf of the appellant but unfortunately I have not had the assistance of anyone appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that under the provisions of Rule 4 of the said Rules an application under S. 20, sub-section (3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act has to be made within six months from the date on which the cause of action for re-entry arises in favour of the tenant. It is urged that the application under Section 20, sub-section (3) having been filed on 25-9-1967 was barred by time inasmuch as the cause of action for filing such an application arose in favour of the tenant on 4-2-1967. In this matter the eviction order had been passed in favour of the appellant landlady and against the respondent-tenant under the provisions of Cl. (g) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In the eviction order it was provided that the respondent- tenant should deliver possession of the premises in dispute to the appellant- landlady on or before 10-6-1965 and that after reconstructing premises, inasmuch as the tenant had elected for being placed back in occupation of the reconstructed premises, the possession to the tenant should be handed back by 10-12-1965. This order was made by the court after the parties had arrived at a compromise. The respondent-tenant delivered possession of the premises in his occupation by the fixed date but was not restored possession in terms of the order of eviction even upto 10-12-1965. The respondent-tenant thereupon moved an application under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for restoration of the possession. In these proceedings there was another compromise (as it is conceded the building had not been completed by then) that the landlady would complete the construction of the building within three months and restore possession of the same to the respondent-tenant on the expiry of this period of three months irrespective of whatever the condition of the premises may be on the expiry of the three months. The Controller re- corded this compromise and passed an order in terms thereof on 4-11-1966. The appellant-landlady did not deliver possession on 4-2-1967 which led to the respondent-tenant moving an application under sub-section (3) of S. 20 on 25-9-1967 on the ground that the appellant- landlady had not restored possession on the completion of the rebuilding of the premises in dispute. A preliminary objection was raised by the appellant- landlady that the application was time- barred but that plea was overruled and, as already noticed earlier, affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. Hence this appeal.