AJIT PERSHAD Vs. NIRMAL DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-tenant in this 2nd appeal u/s 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('the Act') challenged the Judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dt. 4.5.81 partly allowing his appeal directing the respondant landlord to restore the amenity of electricity but confirming the order of the Additional Controller dated 23.9.80 dismissing his petition u/s 45 of the Act with respect to other amenities.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the appellant Ajit Pershad Jain was inducted as tenant in 1972 in a portion of the property, bearing Municipal No. X-264, Jain Mandir Gali No. 3, Mohalla Ram Nagar, Gandhi Nagar. The appellant alleges that he has been a tenant with respect to one room besides common user of laterine, bath room, stair case and open roof on the floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 29.00 inclusive of electricity and water charges, that the respondent has not been granting rent receipts since the inception of the tenancy, and has also been harassing to enhance the rent, which he refused, that the respondent on 18.5.76 filed a petition for his eviction u/s 14(1)(e) of the Act which was dismissed on 9.2.78, that after dismissal of the eviction petition he started harassing him to get the premises vacated; the respondent threatened him with dire consequence if he did not vacate the premises ; the respondent disconnected the supply of electricity, closed the entrance to the stair case and deprived him the use of bath room and the latrine with effect from 18.2.78. A complaint was lodged by the appellant with police and a telegraphic notice was sent to the respondent for the restoration of (he amenities but with no result. The petition u/s 45 of the Act was filed on 7.3.78 for restoration of the amenities. The respondent in his w/s dt. 15.3.78 pleaded that the appellant was tenant only with respect to one room on ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs.46.00 which includes Rs. 11.00 p.m. as electricity charges, that bath room, latrine and open roof were not under his tenancy, that he had been in arrears of rent since 1.9.75, that he did not disconnect the electricity but it was disconnected by the DESU on account of non payment of electricity charges. The respondent denied that he had closed the entrance to the stair case or deprived the appellant of bath room and latrine. The Addl. Controller by his judgment dt. 23,9.80 held that the rent was inclusive of electricity and other charges, that the appellant was enjoying the amenities but on account of the appellant's failure to file the site plan showing the premises, latrine, bath room etc. his petition for restoration of amenities was dismissed. On appeal. Tribunal by its judgment dt. 4.5.81 partly accepted the appeal and directed the respondent to restore the amenity of electricity on deposit of Rs. 356.00 within a week by the appellant. His appeal for restoration of other amenities was dismissed for failure to file the site plan. It was however, held that the appellant was enjoying the other amenities provided by the respondent. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) According to the submission of the counsel for the appellant, the respondent filed a petition for eviction of the appellant u/s 14(1)(e) of the Act on 18.5.76, which was dismissed on 9.2.78 and the resdondent disconnected the electricity supply and withheld other amenities with effect from 18.2.78 by closing the entrance to the stair case, depriving the appellant af the use of bath room and latrine. He further states that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1380.00 as arrears of rent for the period from 1.975 to 28.2.78 @ Rs. 46.00 p.m. which was decreed by the trial Court but on appeal decided on 22.8.79 the decree for Rs. 684.00 only was passed after giving credit for Rs. 586.00 paid to landlord on 20.3.78 and Rs. 110.00 deposited with DESU. The counsel further say that the respondent on 27.3.79 filed another petition for eviction of the appellant u/s 14(1)(a) of the Act i.e. on ground of non-payment of rent for the period from 1.9.75 at Rs. 46.00 p.m. without giving credit for Rs. 506.00 paid to him on 20.3.78 and Rs. 110.00 deposited on his behalf with the DESU. The Additional Controller by order dated 308.79 passed u/s 15(1) of the Act directed the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs. 684.00 as arrears of rent for the period ending 28.2.78 and also rent at Rs. 46.00 with effect from 1.3.78. The appellant, it appears, deposited the amount of rent and the petition on ground of non-payment was dismissed on 112.80.