BAINI RAM Vs. JAINTI PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 16th August. 1973 passing an order of eviction against the appellant-tenant under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No. 1 on 13th February, 1970 filed an application for eviction of the appellants and respondent No. 2 under clauses (a),(b) and (c) of the Proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act alleging that the appellants were tenants under him in a portion of Property No. 3862, Sarai Phoos, Tis Hazari, Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 201-, that they were in arrears of rent from 4th May, 1966 which they failed to pay in spite of service of notice of demand, that he was the owner of the suit premises, that the premises were let for residential purposes, that he required bona fide the premises for himself and for members of his family dependant upon him, that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation at Delhi and further alleging that the appellants had sublet a portion of the suit premises to respondent No. 2. The Additional Controller by order dated 30th November, 1971 held that the appellants had complied with the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act directing the appellants to deposit the arrears of rent for the period from 1st January, 1967 onwards at Rs.20.00 per month and therefore they were entitled to benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act, that the appellants had sublet the premises without obtaining the consent of respondent No. 1, that respondent No. 1 required the premises bona fide for his residence. On appeal by the tenants-appellants the Rent Control Tribunal by order dated 16th August, 1973 held that the requirement of respondent No. 1 was not bona fide, that there was no evidence to show that the appellants had parted with the legal possession of any portion of the premises to respondent No. 2. On the ground of non-payment of rent, it was held that the appellants failed to comply with the order passed on April 10, 1970 under Section 15(1) of the Act directing them to deposit the arrears of rent at Rs. 20.00 per month with effect from 1st January, 1967 up to date within one month from the order and also to deposit future rent month by month by the 15th of the following month. The Tribunal found that the arrears were deposited within one month of the date of the order but there were various defaults in deposisting future monthly rent. The Tribunal therefore maintained the order of eviction but only on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. The appellants challenged the order of the Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 landlord also filed an appeal under Section 39 of the Act (S.A.0. No. 321 of 1973) claiming eviction of the appellants also, under clauses (b) & (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. By this order I will dispose of the two appeals.

(3.) The Controller on 10th April, 1970 passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Act directing the appellants-tenants to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 20.00 per month with effect from 1.1.1967 up to date within one month of the order and also to deposit future rent month by month by the 15th of the each following month. The appellants deposited Rs. 800.00 on 8th May, 1970 which was the amount of arrears for the period from 1st January, 1967 to 30th April, 1970. It is not disputed that the rent for the month of May and June was deposited on 8th June, 1970. This was a deposit within time. The next deposit of Rs. 40.00 was made on 1st September, 1970. This was obviously rent for the month of July and August, 1970. Rent for July, 1970 was required to be deposited on or before 15th August, 1970 but it was deposited on 1st September, 1970. Hence there was a default. Again rent for September and October and November, 1970 was deposited on 20th October, 1970. According to the order under Section 15(1) of the Act rent for the month of September was to be depointed on or before 15th October, 1970 but it was not deposited as such, and therefore there was default in deposit of rent for the month of September, 1970. Several other defaults were also committed by the appellants. In other words it must be held that though the appellants deposited the arrears of rent due on the date of the order dated 10th April, 1970 passed under Section 15(1) of the Act, they committed default in depositing future monthly rent in accordance with the said order under Section 15(1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as the arrears of rent were deposited and there was only default in depositing the future monthly rents, they are protected under Section 14(2) of the Act. Another objection raised by the appellants is that the ground of eviction on non-payment of rent was decided by the Controller against the landlord who did not file any appeal before the Tribunal and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction on ground of non-payment of rent against the appellants under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act.