MANGAL SAIN JOG DHIAN Vs. HARI SHANKAR RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the second appeal filed by the appellants/tenants against the order dated 19th December, 1989 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the order dated 24th October, 1988 passed by the Additional Rent Controller disposing of the petition of the respondents under Section 14(1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short referred to as 'the Act') was disposed of after giving benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act to the appellants. Brief facts relevant to the decision of this appeal are:

(2.) One Lala Jog Dhian was the owner of the property bearing No. 5703-5722, Nai Sarak, Delhi in a family partition in the year 1947, the property fell to the share of Smt. Chandrawati Devi wife of the said Lala Jog Dhian and she, therefore, became the owner/landlord of the said property. In a portion of the property bearing No. 5722, Nai Sarak, Delhi, comprising of one big hall, three rooms and one shed on the ground floor the appellant No. 1, a partnership firm of which Hari Shankar Rastogi and Hari Nath Rastogi were partners, was tenant on a Rent of Rs. 60.50 paise per month. In 1973 the said Chandrawati Devi filed a petition for eviction of the appellants on the ground that the appellants had neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from them w.e.f. Bhandon Sudi Samwat 2028 despite service of notice dated 11th July, 1971 upon them.

(3.) The petition for eviction was contested by appellant No. 1 through appellant No. 2. It was alleged in the written statement that Chandrawati Devi had no locus standi to file the petition as she was a limited owner to the extent of only realising rent and that the appellants were tenants not only in respect of the ground floor of the property bearing Nos. 5722 but also in respect of premises bearing Nos. 5719,5720, 5721 on the ground floor and first floor of the property. It was alleged in the written statement that Smt. Chandrawati Devi had taken a portion of the tenanted premises from the appellants for celebrating the marriage of near niece but the same had not been returned to the appellants and they thus having been deprived of the user of a portion of the tenanted premises were entitled to suspend rent. The learned Additional Rent Controller decided both these points against the appellants and passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Act on 12th July, 1988. The order under. Section 15(1) of the Act having been complied with the Additional Rent Controller after giving benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act to the appellants, disposed of the petition for eviction.'