HARI RAM DHUPAR Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application "in the prescribed manner" has to be filed under section 9(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) for fixation of standard renter for an increase of standard rent and under the proviso to section 14(1) of the Act for the recovery of possession of the premises from the tenant. Accordingly a composite Form A of application for all these three purposes has been prescribed in the Rules made under the Act. Only the relevant entries suited to the particular purpose of the application have to be filed by the applicant who is at liberty to strike out those entries which are not applicable.

(2.) . The landlord Hari Ram Dhupar made an application against the tenants Rajinder Singh and Rattan Singh for their eviction under clause (b) of the proviso to section 14 (1) of the Act on the ground that they had sub-let the premises, This application was made on 17th December, 1968 using the prescribed composite form of application. The landlord, however, filled all the entries in the application including those which were suitable only in an application including fixation of standard rent. On 10th February 1969, the tenants filed a written statement not only denying the claim of the landlord for eviction but also praving that the standard rent of the premises befixed. The lease of the premises had been granted on 20th April, 1967. The limitation 'for an application for .fixation of standard rent fixed by section 12 of the Act was two years from the date of the commencement of the tenancy. The prayer in the writ ten statement made on 10th February, 1969 for fixation of standard rent was, therefore, made within limitation. On 28th November, 1969 the application for eviction was amended and a written statement to the amended application was filed on 23rd January, 1970 reiterating the prayer for fixation of standard rent On 5th January, 1970 the landlord made an application under section 15 (2) of the Act for an order by the Court directing the tenants to pay to him the arrears of rent and the monthly rent. On 11th March, 1970 a reply to this application was filed by the tenants again stating that the contractual rent was high and a standard rent should be fixed. On 24th March, 1970 Shri S. R. Goel, Additional Rent Controller passed an order for payment of rent under section 15(2) and also observed therein that the plea for fixation of standard rent was barred by time. This observation apparently related only to the plea for fixation of standard rent taken in the reply filed on 11th March, 1970 to the application of the landlord made under section 15 (2). On 7th August 1970, however, the tenants pointed out that their original prayer for the fixation of standard rent was made within limitation and prayed that the standard rent be fixed accordingly. This prayer was resisted by the landlord on the ground that the observation of the Additional Rent Controller made on 24th March 1970 that the plea for fixation of standard rent was barrel by time operated as res judicata. Shri Jaspal Singh, Additional Rent Controller, however, held that the application for fixation of standard rant as originally made on 10th February, 1969 was within limitation and that the standard rent could be fixed as prayed for therein. Against this order of 14th October, 1970 the landlord went in appeal but the Rent Control Tribunal agreed with the Additional Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) . In this second appeal Shri Bharat Inder Singh learned counsel for the appellant has urged two grounds, namely :-