BHAJAN LAL Vs. MADAN LAL BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 29th April, 1974 affirming on appeal the Judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 27th September, 1973 passing an order of eviction against the appellant.

(2.) The appellant above named had also filed another second appeal (R.S.A. No. 221 of 1973) under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge dated 31st May, 1973 affirming on appeal the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi dated 22nd February, 1973 passing a decree for the recovery of Rs. 2750.00 with costs against him on account of arrears of rent. In these two appeals, the only question for decision is : Whether the appellant or the firm Bhajan Lal Harcharan Lal was inducted as tenant under the respondent with respect to the suit premises. This judgment will dispose of both the appeals.

(3.) Briefly the facts are that on 24th February, 1956 Madan Lal Bajaj, respondent let out Shop No. 4878, Phatak Namak, Hauz Q,izi, Delhi to M/s. Bhajan Lal Harcharan Lal on a monthly rent of Rs. 110.00 . The respondent received a sum of Rs. 660.00 by cheque issued by the said firm for which a receipt dated 24 February, 1956 (Ex. R. 1) was issued for the period from 1st March, 1956 to 31 August, 1956. On 27th February, 1956 firm Bhajan Lal Harcharan Lal through Bhajan Lal son of Damodar Das as sole proprietor of the firm executed a rent note (Ex. A. 1) in favour of the respondent with respect to the said shop premises. On 26th May) 1967 the respondent issued a notice (Ex. A. 3) to the appellant alleging that he was tenant in the said shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 110.00 that he was in arrears of rent, that neither he nor any member of his family was residing in the premises, that he had acquired vacant possession of another premises at Greater Kailash, that he had caused damage to the property. The respondent also terminated the tenancy of the appellant. The appellant through his counsel sent a reply dated 7th June, 1967 (Ex, A. 4) and stated that the premises were in his occupuation and were being used by him, that the respondent was refraining from receiving rent from him, that he had sent rent by money order. It is pertinent to note that the appellant in his reply did not deny his relation as a tenant under the respondent. The respondent sent another notice dated 2nd February, 196S (Ex. A. 5) by registered A.D. post as well as under certificate of posting. The appellant did not reply to this notice.