KANWAR KUMAR SETH Vs. MULKH RAJ MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are that the petitioner had filed a petition for eviction dated 24.2.86, against the respondent under Section 14(l)(a)(b)(c)(j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. As non payment of rent is one of the grounds of eviction, an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was passed on 7.7.87 by the Addl. Rent Controller directing the respondent to pay or deposit the entire arrears of rent @ Rs.90.00 per month from 1.7.85 upto date within one month from the date of the order and to continue to pay or deposit the future rent month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month. In compliance with that order the respondent deposited the arrears of rent w.e f. 1.7.85 to 31.7.86 @ 90.00 p.m. on 48.87 i.e. within one month of the date of the order.

(2.) The petitioner was not satisfied with the order of the Addl. Rent Controller, as according to him, the Addl. Rent Controller should have ordered to deposit the rent @ Rs. 97.00 am. and not @ Rs. 90.00 and so he filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal challenging the order of the Addl. Rent Controller. The Rent Control Tribunal accepted the appeal on 17.11.87 and modified the order of the Addl. Rent Controller to the extent that the respondent should pay or deposit the arrears @ 97 f- p.m. instead of Rs. 90.00 . One month's time was granted to pay or deposit in Court the difference between Rs. 97.00 and Rs.90.00 for the period 1.7.85 to 31.10.87 i.e. the difference of Rs. 7.00 per month which was deposited by the tenant on 22.3.88 i e. after about four months and on account of this delay the petitioner moved an application under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for striking out the defence of the respondent.

(3.) Both the Courts below have discussed the various pleas taken by the Counsel for the parties and following the decision of the Supreme Court in Santosh Mehta v. 0m Parkash, 1980 RLR 385 declined the request of the petitioner and observed that the default in the present case cannot be said to be contumacious or wilful particularly when the entire rent has been deposited by the responpent.