CHAMAN LAL CHAWLA Vs. MOHAMMAD SHAFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Preferred under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, Act 59 of 1958, here-in-after called the Act, this appeal is directed against the order de by the Rent Control Tribunal on the 3rd May, 1969. The relevant circumstances pertaining to this appeal may be noticed. An application was filed against the present appellant under section 14 of the Act seeking his eviction. The applicants were Mohd. Shafi and Mst. Hajra Bi. In paragraph 3(a) of the application the names and addresses of the applicants were described. In paragraph 3(b) thereof the name and address of the present appellant was cited. The eviction was sought on the ground contained in section 14(l)(a) of the Act. Concluding that the present appellant was not coming forward to contest the application of eviction in spite of service, he was proceeded against exparte. On the 11th June, 1965 the statement of the one of the applicants Mohd. Shafi was recorded and on its basis an order of eviction was made against the appellant on the 17th July, 1965.

(2.) In his statement as Public Witness . Mohd. Shafi stated before the Add1. Rent Controller that the appellant was a tenant in the premises in dispute at Rs. 18. 12 per month and that he had not paid the rent for a long time and the arrears of rent due as on the 31st August. 1964 amounted to Rs. 2175.08. The witness then stated that a notice had been sent to the respondent, a copy whereof was Ex. P. 1. and the registration receipt showing that it had been sent. acknowledgement due was Ex. P. 2. It was then deposed that the notice had not been distributed to the appellant. I have used the word "distributed" as that would be the correct translation of the word used in Urdu. The statement then was that the respondent had refused. to receive the notice and the envelope containing the same was Ex. P. 3. Public Witness 1 then stated that the notice Ex. P. 1. had been pasted at the spot and the report regarding the affixation of Ex. P. 1. was correct. He stated that he had himself pasted the notice. It was not clarified in his statement as to whether the spot where the notice had been pasted was the shop in dispute or the premises where the respondent was residing. The words which deserve to be noticed as used in Urdu, were:-

(3.) With the afore-said documentary and oral evidence being available, the Addl. Rent Controller was called upon to exercise his jurisdiction within section 14(1) (a) of the Act:-