RAM PARKASH KAPUR Vs. BHAGWENTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved from the decision of the Rent Control Tribunal dated November 24, 1971 that an order under sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereafter called "the Act", could be passed by the Controller on the basis of prima fade evidence indicating the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, the tenant Ram Parkash Kapur, hereafter called "the appellant" filed second appeal No: 306 of 1971 in this Court. The learned single Judge, before whom this appeal came for hearing, having regard to the fact that the question affected a large number of cases, referred the appeal for decision by a larger Bench. By the same order, the Tribunal also held that in the facts of this case rent for the period claimed by the respondent, Bhagwanti Devi was not barred by time. This finding has also been assailed in this appeal. It appears that Bhagwanti Devi had also filed an appeal before the Tribunal which the Tribunal accepted by the same order. Aggrieved from this part of the order. Ram Parkash Kapur filed a separate appeal in this Court (S.A.O. 67 of 1972). The subject matter of the two appeals being the common order, both S.A.O.s 306/71 and 67/72 have, therefore, come up for decision before us.

(2.) The appeals have arisen in the following circumstances :- The appellant occupied portion of the property bearing No: 6, Original Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi with effect from October 8, 1956 at an agreed rent of Rs.100.00 per month. The property was let to him by one Chuni Lal Sabharwal. In the year 1959 the appellant applied for fixation of standard rent of the premises let to him. Chuni Lal Sabharwal applied for eviction of the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent. On January 11, 1960 Rent Controller passed an order under section 15(1) of the Act requiring the appellant to deposit arrears of rent with effect from May 8, 1959 at the rate of Rs. 80.00 per month. The appellant deposited the arrears then due at this rate and the eviction case was, for this reason, consigned to record room and the application for fixation of standard rent alone remained pending. On January 4, 1961, the Controller fixed the standard rent of the premises at RS. 100.00 per month. Aggrieved from this the appellant went up in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the appeal and remanded the case. The landlord filed a second appeal in the High Court against this order. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlord Chuni Lal Sabharwal died on July, 4, 1968. His widow, the present respondent in both the appeals, applied for being impleaded as the appellant in place of her deceased husband in the appeal then pending in the High Court. Her case in the application was that Chuni Lal Sabharwal had been managing the property for and on her behalf as she was an illiterate person and that he had left behind the applicant as the widow and four sons and four daughters but she alone was entitled to be impleaded as appellant in place of the deceased and that the other four sons and four daughters may be impleaded as respondents 2 to 9. Notice of the application was sent to the appellant. The appellant resisted the application and filed a reply. He contended that he knew only Chuni Lal Sabharwal as the owner and landlord of the premises and that the applicant alone was not entitled to continue the proceedings. After filing this reply, he, however, did not appar to contest the application. By order dated February 17, 1969, the application was accepted and the respondent was substituted in the appeal in place of the deceased Chuni Lal Sahbarwal and the four sons and four daughters of the deceased were impleaded as respondents 2 to 9. On October, 3, 1969 the appeal was finally dismissed by this Court on merits so that Rs. 100.00 remained to be the standard rent of the premises.

(3.) On May 30, 1970, the respondent filed an application for eviction of the appellant out of which these two appeals have arisen. The grounds on which eviction was sought were non-payment of rent and bona fide personal need. The respondent claimed that the appellant was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2480.00 for the period with effect from May 8, 1959 to September 7,1969 at the rate of Rs. 20.00 per month (being the difference between Rs. 80.00 the rate of interim rent fixed by the Controller and RS. 100.00, the standard rent as finally determined by the court) and had also not paid the subsequent rent at the rate of Rs.100 / per month for the period with effect from September 8, 1969 to May 7, 1970. The appellant contested the application and denied that the respondent alone was her landlady. He maintained that after the death of Chuni Lal Sabharwal all his heirs jointly (including the respondent) were the persons entitled to receive rent. Acting under sub-section (1) of section 15 after hearing the appellant, the learned Additional Rent Controller, by his order dated March 30, 1971, found that there was prima facie evidence on record to show that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and on this basis passed an order requiring the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent as claimed by the respondent as also future rent at the rate of Rs.100.00per month by the 15th of each succeeding month. He also held that because interim rent of the premises at the rate of Rs.80.00was fixed to be operative from May 8, 1959 and the standard rent at the rate of Rs.100.00 was fixed on October 3, 1969, cause of action to claim the difference of Rs. 20.00 per month accrued to the respondent only on October 3, 1969 and, therefore, her claim for Rs. 2480.00 for the period with effect from May 8, 1959 to September 7, 1969 was not barred by time. The appellant had pleaded that he had already made certain deposits towards the rent of the premises in the courts of Shri P.K. Bahri and Shri P.K. Jai under section 27 of the Act. The learned Additional Rent Controller held that he was entitled to adjust these amounts in the deposits that he was required to make. In the concluding part of the order he said: "this order was without prejudice to the pleas of the parties". Aggrieved from this, both the appellant and the respondent filed separate appeals before the Rent Control Tribunal. In agreement with the learned Additional Rent Controller, the Tribunal held that the evidence on record prima facie showed that the respondent was realising rents of the premises from the appellant after the death of her husband and therefore, had the locus stardi to claim rent and to file the eviction application against the appellant. He also agreed with the learned Additional Rent Controller that claim of the respondent for no part of the period between May 8, 1959 to September 7, 1969 was barred by time. In this view, he dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Dealing with the appeal of the respondent, against the finding that the appellant could claim adjustment of rents deposited by him under section 27 of the Act, the Tribunal held that these deposits had not been made by the appellant in favour of the respondent alone but the deposits were in favour of all the heirs of deceased Chuni Lal Sabharwal (including the respondent) and in these circumstances could not be availed of by the appellant to claim adjustment against the rents claimed to be due by the respondent alone. With this finding he accepted the appeal of the respondent. Hence these two appeals before us as stated earlier.