RAM MURTI Vs. BHOLA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant, in his second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") challenges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 23rd August, 1977 affirming on appeal the order of the Additional Controller dated 8th March, 1976 directing his eviction under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that on 19th December, 1968 Bhola Nath, respondent filed a petition for eviction of the appellant and one Basant Lal under Section 14(l)(a) (b) of the Act alleging that the appellant was his tenant in quarter No. 16137 AB, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi on monthly rent of Rs. 80 besides other charges, that he in spite of a notice dated 8th October, 1968 demanding arrears of rent for the period from 1st June, 1961, failed to pay the same and that he had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of two rooms of the tenancy premises to Basant Lal without obtaining his consent. The appellant in his written statement challenged the validity of the notice of demand and pleaded that the rent was Rs. 18 per month. He denied the ground of sub-letting. The Additional Comtroller by judgment dated 14th February, 1969 passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Act directing the appellant to deposit all arrears of rent at Rs. 18 per month for the period from 1st December, 1965 within one month and future monthly rent by the 15th of the succeeding month.' The respondent-landlord filed an appeal challenging the order dated 14th February, 1969 on the ground that the Controller ought to have directed the appellant to deposit rent @ Rs. 80 per month. The Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the landlord's appeal. The Additional Controller by his judgment dated 7th August, 1972 passed an order of eviction under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act and he!d that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 80 per month. The appellant was directed to deposit balance of arrears for the period" from 1st December, 1965 at Rs. 80 per month within one month and was allowed to deduct the amount already deposited by him to get the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act. The eviction application under Section 14(l)(b) of the Act was dismissed. The respondent-landlord filed an appeal before the Tribunal claiming eviction under Section 14(l)(b) of the Act. The appellant also filed an appeal challenging the agreed rate of rent and other findings. The Tribunal accepted the two appeals and remanded the case for recording additional evidence and decision in accordance with law. The Additional Controller after recording evidence by his judgment dated 8th March, 1976 held that a valid notice of demand was served upon the appellant, that he comittted default in complying with the order dated 14th February, 1969 passed under Section 15(1) of the Act and therefore he held that it was unnecessary to determine whether the agreed rent was Rs. 18 or Rs. 80 per month. An order of eviction against the appellant under Section 14(1) (a) was passed and the landlord's claim for eviction under Section 14(l)(b) of the Act was dismissed. The appellant's appeal by judgment dated 23rd August, 1977 was dismissed by the Tribunal confirming order of the Additional Controller.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds : 1. The eviction application does not disclose any cause of action; 2. No valid notice of demand under Section 14(1) (a) of the Act was ever served upon the appellant ; 3. The order dated 14th February, 1969 requiring the appellant to deposit arrears of rent with effect from 1st December, 1965 at the interim rate of Rs. 18 per month merged with the order dated 7th August, 1972 of the Additional Controller and as order dated 7th August, 1972 was set aside by the Tribunal on 25th April, 1974 the order dated 14th February, 1969 is also deemed to have been set aside. 4. In any case after the acceptance of the appeals by the Tribunal on 25th April, 1972 remanding the case to the Additional Controller, there was no automatic revival of the order dated 14th February, 1969 passed under Section 15(1) of the Act. 5. The dispute whether agreed rent or the last paid rent was Rs. 80 or Rs. 18 per month has not been determined and therefore the Rent Control authorities have no jurisdiction to pass the order of eviction. 6. There was no default in deposit of arrears of rent but there was only some delay in deposit of future monthly rent under Order dated 14th February, 1969 and the Rent Control Authorities ought to have condoned the same.