BUDH PRAKASH SETHI Vs. SUMITRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal on behalf of the tenant under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the order of eviction passed against him under Section 14(1) (a) read with the proviso to Section 14 (2) of the Act.

(2.) The appellant was inducted as a tenant in shop No. 14, Krishna Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi by Anant Ram, Predecessor of the respondents (hereinafter called 'the landlord') in 1962 at a monthly rent of Rs. 50.00 . He sent a notice of demand dated 7th November, 1964 and another notice dated 30th February, 1965 requiring the appellant to pay arrears of rent for the period from 1st February, 1963 onwards. The appellant, it appears, neither paid nor tendered the rent due. The landlord on 22nd April, 1965 filed an eviction petition under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act alleging that the appellant neither paid nor tendered the arrears, of rent in spite of service of notice of demand. The appellant claimed fixation of standard rent of the premises and pleaded that he had paid rent up to 31st July, 1964. He also claimed certain amount on account of repairs and electricity charges alleged to have been paid by him on behalf of the landlord. The Additional Controller vide order dated 4th August, 1965 fixed the interim rentatRs.35.00 per month and directed the appellant to deposit all arrears of rent at the said rate with effect from 1st August, 1964 within one month from that date and also to deposit future rent by the 15th of the succeeding month. The appellant complied with the said order. The Additional Controller by order dated 5th October, 1967 fixed standard rent of the premises at Rs. 30.00 per month with effect from 1st June, 1965. It was observed that the appellant had deposited rent up to August, 1967 in compliance with the earlier order dated 4th August, 1965. 1965. It was also held that the appellant had paid rent for the period ending 31st July, 1964. The excess amount deposited by the appellant during the period from June, 1965 to August, 1967 was ordered to be adjusted towards the future rent. The eviction application was dismissed. From the record it appears that the excess amount of rent deposited by the appellant was adjusted towards rent for the period ending 30th February, 1968.

(3.) The landlord filed another eviction application against the appellant on 4th September, 1971 from which this second appeal has arisen. He alleged that the appellant had failed to pay arrears of rent at Rs. 30.00 per month for the period from 1st March, 1968 besides Rs. 10.00 on account of rent for the remaining period of February, 1968. A sum of Rs. l,240.00 in all was thus claimed for the period ending 31st July, 1971. He further alleged that the appellant had not paid rent at Rs. 30.00 per month for three consecutive months. The appellant in his written statement pleaded that he had been regularly depositing rent in court, as the landlord had refused to accept the rent tendered personally and through money order. He pleaded that he deposited Rs. 340.00 on 30th March, 1969, Rs. 300.00 on 1st November, 1969, Rs. 180.00 on 1st June, 1970 Rs 180.00 on 16th December, 1970, Rs. 340.00 on on 28th July, 1971 and Rs. 120.00 on 25th January, 1972 and that the said deposits were for the period ending 30th November, 1971. He further pleaded that notice of deposit of rent was sent to the landlord but he did not withdraw the amount from court. He also pleaded that rent tendered by money order was refused by the landlord. The landlord in his eviction application had not pleaded service of any notice of demand. His plea was only that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served. The tenant-appellant in his written statement denied the receipt of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.