SUDARSHAN KUMAR Vs. RATTAN LAL DHINGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The premises of the landlord RattanLal were let out to the tenant Sudharshan Kumar by a rent note executed on 12/08/1963 in which the material words are as follows :-

(2.) The Controller granted an order for eviction to the landlord underclause (c) of the proviso to section 14(1). But this order was variedby the Rent Control Tribunal in the first appeal filed by the tenant bygranting the conditional order for eviction under clause (j) of the saidproviso, the condition being under sub-section (10) of section 14 namely,that the tenant shall carry out repairs to the damage caused by him tothe satisfaction of the Controller within one month and it is only if hefails to do so that the order for recovery of possession could be made.Against this order of the Rent Control Tribunal both the landlordand the tenant have filed appeals.

(3.) A preliminary question arises as to whether the tenancy was terminated by the landlord before the filing of the application for eviction.The Controller only remarked in para 10 of his order that the tenancywas terminated by the notice Exhibit A-3 with effect from 11-12-1967.The Rent Control Tribunal did not allow the tenant to argue the validity of the notice on the ground that he had not raised this pointspecifically in the written statement and had not pleaded that the tenancy month was from 13th of each month after the expiry of theoriginal tenancy for 11 months.