BRIJ LAL GAUTAM Vs. PARBAT DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the tenant challenges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 26th Aug., 1981 directing him to deposit all arrears of rent from 1st Nov., 1974 up to date at Rs. 80/- per month within one month from the date of the said order and if the rent is deposited he would be deemed to have taken benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act and in default order of eviction would be deemed to have been passed against him. The Additional Controller by his judgment and order dated 19th August, 1980 had directed the appellate to deposit rent with effect from 1st May, 1980 at Rs. 8/- per month and dismissed the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that Parbati Devi respondent claimed eviction of the appellant under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act alleging that he has been a tenant under her since 1st Nov., 1974 at Rs. 80/- per month, that a notice of demand dated 6th July, 1979 was served upon him requiring him to pay all arrears of rent for the period from 1st November, 1974 onwards at Rs. 80/- per month, that he neither paid nor tendered any rent and therefore he was liable to eviction. She also alleged that he was not entitled to benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act as according to her he had already availed of the same by order dated 20th Dec., 1978 of the Rent Control Tribunal in the earlier proceedings between the parties. The notice of demand was served on 11th July, 1979 and the eviction application was filed on 20th Nov., 1979. The appellant in his written statement pleaded that he was a tenant since October-November, 1973, that he deposited two months rent in court in Suit No. 33 of 1975, that a sum of Rs. 3360/- was paid in cash to the husband/attorney of the respondent on 1st June, 1979 that he had remitted Rs. 560/- and Rs. 480/- by money order on 21st July, 1979 and 27th July, 1979 which were refused by the respondent, that previously no order directing him to deposit rent under Section 15(1) of the Act was passed and that he had never enjoyed any benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act.

(3.) The following questions arise in this appeal :