UTTAM CHAND SHAH Vs. ANGURI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal must be accepted on the short ground that the petitition under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 which was filed by the respondent for the ejectment of the appellant from the demised premises out of which the present appeal has arisen, was not maintainable in the absence of a notice terminating the tenancy of the appellant as required by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and was. therefore, liable to be dismissed. The appsal has arisen, in the following circumstances:-

(2.) By an order made on 23-5-1969 the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the appellant from the premises in dispute under section 14(1) read with proviso to section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 on the ground that the appellant had made default in the payment of rent despite the notice of demand. The Controller dispelled the plea of the appellant that the petition was not maintainable as the respondent had not given notice of termination of the tenancy to the appellant as envisaged by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as the Controller held that the tenancy in dispute was of a period prior to December 1, 1962 and that the termination of such a tenancy was not necessary in view of the observations of the then Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court in the case T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gltjral reported as 1968 Delhi High Court Notes 206 and the case of Des Raj v. Ronjit Lal reported as 1968 Delhi High Court Motes 208^). The Controller further held that it had been settled law that in cases under the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 notice terminating the tenancy was not required.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the Controller the appellant filed an appeal under section 38 of the Act to the Rent Control Tribunal being R.C.A. No. 594/69 which was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal by an order made on July 31, 1969 in limini on the short ground that inasmuch as the appellant was not entitled to adjust the amount alleged to have been spent by him on the repairs, the appellant had made default in the payment of rent despite notice of demand sent to the appellant. The Rent Control Tribunal, however, did not advert to the question as to the maintainability or otherwise of the petition by virtue of absence of a notice terminating the tenancy although a specific plea to that effect had been raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the appellant had filed the present appeal.