RAGHUNANDAN SARAN ASHOK SARAN JOINT HINDU FIRM AND ANR Vs. PEAREY LAL AND SONS (PRIVATE) LTD JANPATH, NEW DELHI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of R. F. A. 39-D/63 Civil Revision 214 D/64, Civil Revision 215 D/64, Civil Revision 248 D/64 and Civil Revision 249-D/64. Briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal and the revisions are as under.

(2.) M/s Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran, a joint Hindu Family Firm appellants in R.F.A. 39-D/63, are the landlords in respect of separate portions of the ground floor of the building bearing Nos. 18-19, Janpath, New Delhi. This entire ground floor was at one time in the tenancy of Pearey Lal & Sons Private Limited. On July 1, 1956,this ground floor was divided into portions which were separately let to M/s Pearey Lal and Sons (P) Ltd. at Rs. 1094/- per month, M/s Pearey Lal Workshop (P) Ltd. at Rs. 400/- per month and M/s. Ghaziabad Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. at Rs. 273/- per month In the year 1958 the appellants filed three suits under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (XXXVIII of 1952) hereafter called 'the Act' for the eviction of the above named tenants. In case of the suit against Pearey Lal & Sons (P) Ltd. (being suit No. 197/60) the only ground for eviction was non-payment of rent. In the suit against Pearey Lal Workshop (P) Ltd (suit No 200 of 1960) eviction was claimed on ground of non-payment of rent as well as under section 13(1)(k)of the Act i. e., on the ground of the failure of the tenant in spite of notice to remove the breach of the terms of lease existing between the landlord and the lessor of the land on which the premises was constructed. The suit against the Ghaziabad Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. (being suit No 201/60) was also on the ground of non-payment of rent alone. In Suit No. 197 and 201 of 1960 the learned counsel for the landlord, on June 4, 1972 made a statement that as ejectment was sought only on the ground of non-payment of rent which was deposited by the tenant along with costs on the first date of hearing, the tenants in both the suits were not liable to be evicted and the suits had become infructuous and may be dismissed. In answer to the plaints in both the suits the tenants however contested the liability to pay rent at the agreed rate and prayed for determination of standard rent. They pleaded that the agreed rent was execessive and exorbitant and much above the standard rent and the court was not competent to enforce payment of any rent higher than the standard rent and as disputes had arisen between the parties regarding standard rent payable in respect of the premises the same may be determined by the court. In answer to the claim for eviction in suit No. 200/60 in addition to the plea that the standard rent may be determined by the court for the same reasons is pleaded in the other suits, the liability for eviction under section 13(1)(k) was also emphatically repudiated.

(3.) All the three suits were consolidated by the learned trial court. On the pleadings before him the following issues were framed :