RAJINDER PER SHAD Vs. SURAJ MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of three second appeals : S.A.OS 228,229 and 230 of 1971, filed by the landlord. Raj inder Pershad and directed against the order dated June 1, 1971 of the Rent Control Tribunal, by which, accepting the three appeals of the tenants, it set aside three separate orders passed by the Additional Controller, one under Section 15 (1) of the Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called 'the Act', directing payment of rent, the order under Section 15 (7) striking out the tenant's defence, and the third under Section 14(1) (a) of the Act, ordering eviction of the tenants.

(2.) The appellant landlord, filed an application under Section 14 of the Act for the eviction of the respondent-tenants from the premises in dispute on the ground that they had neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent due at the rate of Rs. 75.00 per month for the period from July 14, 1965 witnin two months of the service of notice of demand. The respondents pleaded that in the year 1961, a portion of the premises had been surrendered to the landlord, tor which the rent was reduced to Rs. 60.00 per month. The present landlord, Rajinder Pershad, had purchased the property in 1965, when the respondents are alleged to have been deprived of certain other portions of the demised premises. This according to the respondents, entitled them to invoke the doctrine of suspension of rent. No rent, according to them, was payable.

(3.) The Additional Controller passed an order under section 15(1) of the Act, directing the respondents to deposit the arrears of rent at she rate of Rs. 60.00 per month with effect from January 6, 1968, up to date, within one month of the order and also to deposit future rent month by month byl5tb day of each succeeding month. As there were disputes about the respondent tenants having been deprived of a portion of the premises, the amount deposited was not to be paid to the landlord till the final decision of the application. The order further stated, that there was no sufficient material for holding that the respondents were entitled to suspension of rent, nor was there any prima facie evidence to show that the agreed rent was more than Rs. 60.00 per month.