SATYA WATI Vs. V K SHUKIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord in this 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 18-8-1981 dismissing his application for eviction of the respondent on the ground of non payment of rent as mentioned in Section 14(l)(a)ofthe Act.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the appellant on 21-10-1975 filed the application for eviction of the respondent alleging that he was her tenant in one room of property No. 5A/5 Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi on a monthly rent of R8.150.00 as besides Rs. 20.00 fixed charges for water and electricity, that he has been in arrears since 5-10-1974, that he remitted two money orders ofRs.l50.00 each received on 6-2-1975 and 17-3-1975 and another money order for Rs. 300.00 , received on 17-5-1975, that notice of demand dated 9-8-1975 was sent by registered A.D. post as well as under certificate of posting, which was served on 16-8-1975. She further pleaded that after notice the respondent paid Rs. 80.00 as electricity charges and another sum of Rs. 340.00 as rent and electricity charges as per receipt No. A-59 dated 13-8-1975, that the respondent was liable to eviction as he neither paid nor tendered the whole of arrears of rent in spite of service of the notice of demand, that the respondent had availed of the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act in previous suit No. E-325 of 1973 decided on 5-3-1974.

(3.) The respondent in his written statement pleaded that the rent of Rs. 150.00 was inclusive of electricity charges, that no notice of demand was served upon him, that he paid Rs. 450.00 on account of rent on or about 4-8-1975, that he had been regularly paying advance rent and as such had paid rent upto 4-1-1976, that the appellant with malafide intention had not been issuing the rent receipts whenever asked for by him. The appellant in her replication denied receipt of Rs, 450.00 on or about 4-8-1975 or any other amount. Other allegations were also controverted by the appellant. The Additional Controller passed the eviction order holding that the alleged payments were not proved and the respondent had previously availed of the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act. On appeal the Rent Control Tribunal held that the respondent had availed of the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act but he had paid all rents, that no rent was due when the notice of demand was served/issued. Accordingly the eviction petition was dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence this second appeal.