LRISJAN LAL Vs. N K BASLAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Landlord Krishan Lal let out his premises to tenant Baslas on an agreed rent of Rs. 250.00. It is not disputed that the tenant was using a telephone which was in the premises at the time of the lease and that the said telephone was removed from the premises by the landlord on 31st July, 1970. The tenant's plea is that the parties agreed that the landlord should charge only Rs. 175.00 as rent and that Rs. 75.00 from the agreed rent were agreed by the landlord to be reduced due to the loss of the telephone facility. The tenant also pleaded that the landlord had deprived him of the use of the rear courtyard and hand pump. The landlord has denied all this. The landlord filed a petition for eviction against the tenant on the ground of misuser of the premises and his own bona fide necessity for residing in them, namely, under clauses (c) and (e) of the proviso to section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) When eviction is claimed by the landlord on any ground other than that referred to in sub-section (1) of section 15 (namely, non-payment of rent) and the tenant contests the claim tor eviction, the Controller (on an application made by the landlord) has to pass an order asking the tenant to pay to the landlord the amount of rent, legally recoverable from the tenant and this order under section 15 (2) of the Act has to be in accordance with the provisions of section 15 (1) of the Act.

(3.) The Controller purpoted to pass an order asking the tenant to deposit Rs. 175.00 per month on a prima facie view of the case without finally deciding whether the tenant was in fact entitled to reduce the amount of rent by Rs. 75 on account of the deprivation of the telephone facility and also did not decide the question as to whether the tenant was deprived of any part of the premises by the landlord Both the landlord and the tenant appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal. The landlord contended that rate of the rent should not have been reduced in the order passed under section 15 (2) while the tenant contended that no order for payment of rent should have been passed under section 15 (2) without deciding his contention that he was deprived of the use of the rear country aid and the hand pump by the landlord. The Rent Control Tribunal dismissed both the appeals. Hence, these second appeals by the tenant (S. A. 0. 102 of 1972) and by the landlord (S.A.O. 140 of 1972) to this Court.