ASHOK KUMAR Vs. RAMGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the challenge is to the correctness of the order of the Rent Control Tribunal who has held that when an order under Section 15(1) had been passed for the second time and the rent paid by the tenant, then eviction could not be ordered under Section 14(l)(a) read with proviso to Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) The appellant is a landlord-owner of shop No. M-19, Greater Kailash-l, Market, New Delhi. The said shop had been taken on rent by the respondent. The respondent was in arrears of rent. The appellant filed an application under S. 14(l )(a) on l3th March, 1973 for the eviction of the respondent on the ground of non payment of rent. The Rent Controller passed an order under Section 15(1) requiring the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent. On the rent having been deposited an order was passed on 11th March, 1974 dismissing the eviction petition by giving to the tenant the benefit of Section 14(2).

(3.) It appears that the tenant again defaulted in payment of rent. A notice dated 28th April, 1978 was sent by the landlord, calling upon the tenant to pay arrears of rent with effect from 1st April, 1977 to 31st March, 1978 as well as to pay the future rent. According to the landlord this notice was not complied with. Rent for some of this period, namely, upto September, 1977 was paid. In August, 1978 a fresh petition under Section 14(1) (a) was filed. This-petition was dismissed in April, 1979 on the ground that it had not been proved that the father of the appellant had the authority to file the said application for eviction. Thereupon the present application was filed on 24th May, 1979. On 6th September, 1979 the Controller, inter-alia, passed the following order :