RAM KUMAR Vs. JANKI PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, called 'the Act') by the landlord challenging the judgment and order dated November 17, 1976 of the Rent Control Tribunal, setting aside the orders for eviction of the respondent and striking out his defence passed by the Additional Controller. The Tribunal held that the defence was not liable to be struck out and that it was imperative for the Additional Controller to pass a fresh order under Section 15(1) of the Act after determination of the disputes regarding the rate of rent and the period for which the arrears were due to the appellant-landlord.

(2.) The appellant filed an application for eviction on the grounds covered by clauses (a) and (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. Subsequently the appellant gave up the ground of eviction covered by Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. The appellant alleges that the respondent became a tenant under him from April 1, 19/2, that he neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent for the period from April 1, 1972 at Rs. 50.00 per month inspite of service of a notice of demand dated March 11, 1975. The respondent in his written statement pleads that the promises were let to him in January 1962 at Rs. 12.00 per month, that the month of tenancy starts from 17th of every English calendar month and ends on 16th of the following month, that rent for the period ending 16th December 1974 had been paid. The Additional Controller by order dated August 19, 1975 passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Act directing the respondent to deposit arrears of rent at Rs. 12.00 per month for the period from December 17, 1974 within one month and continue to deposit future monthly rent at the said rate by the 15th of the succeeding month. There are thus two dispute between the parties (1) Whether the contractual rate of rent was Rs. 50.00 or Rs. 12.00 per month and (2) for what period the arrears were due ? The Additional Controller did not decide the two disputed questions but, on the admission of the respondent, had passed the order for deposit of rent. The respondent deposited Rs. 108.00 on September 9, 1975 and Rs. 36.00 on November 27, 1975. The first deposit of Rs. 108.00 is for the period 17.12.1974 to 16.9.1975. The second deposit is for the period 17.9.1975 to 16.12.1975. The respondent thus did not deposit rent for the period from September 17, .1975 to October 16, 1975 within 15 days of the expiry of the tenancy month. In other words it means that there was a delay of 27 days in depositing rent for one month ending 16.101975. The appellant by an application under Section 15(1) of the Act prayed for striking off the defence. The respondent in reply submitted that he had been depositing rent in advance much before the due dates, that there was delay in second deposit on account of mathematical error on his part. He said that he was always under the impression that he had cleared all dues up to October 1975, when he made the second deposit. On account of mathematical mistake, it appears, the tenant deposited the rent for one month ending October 16, 1975 on November 27, 1975. The Additional Controller struck out the defence by order dated July 6, 1976 and after recording evidence passed an order of eviction on July 29, 1976.

(3.) The respondent tenant filed two appeals before the Rent Control Tribunal, challenging the order of eviction as well as the order striking off his deffence. The Tribunal held that the delay in depositing the rent was neither contumacious nor wilful and set aside the order striking off the defence. The Tribunal further observed that as there were disputes regarding the rate of rent and the period for which the rent was due and legally recoverable, the Additional Controller was required to pass a fresh order under section 15(1) of the Act in supersession of the earlier order for deposit of rent.