MURARI LAL VERMA Vs. NANAK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), the appellant- tenant challenges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dated 14th September, 1973 affirming an appeal the order of eviction passed by the Additional Rent Controller under Section !4(l)(a) of the Act against him on 28th July, 1973.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the appellant was a tenant under the respondent in a shop of the property at 13/5, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 55.00 . The respondent served a notice dated 1st January 1971 (Ex. A-l) demanding Rs. 880.00 arrears of rent for the period from 1st September, 1969 to 31st December, 1970 at Rs. 55.00 per month. The appellant in his reply dated 11th January, 1971 (Ex. A-2) stated that he had paid rent upto 30th September, 1969, that he had carried out electricity work in the property of the respondent for which he submitted a bill for Rs. 563.05 and had not been paid, that a sum of Rs. 45.00 was paid as advance rent, and thus a sum of Rs. 217.00 only was due to the landlord as rent for the period ending 31st December, 1970. The appellant neither paid nor tendered any amount within a period of two months of tht receipt of the notice.

(3.) The respondent on 4th January, 1972 filed the petition claiming eviction under section 14(l)(a) of the Act alleging the rent was due at Rs. 55.00 per month with effect from 1st October, 1969 which the appellant neither paid nor tendered in spite of notice dated 1st January, 1971. In the written statement the appellant pleaded that a sum of Rs. 590.80 was due to him on account of electricity work carried out by him at the request of respondent ; Rs. 45.00 wai paid as advance rent ; another sum of Rs. 500.00 was paid to him towards rent, and he was entitled to adjust one month's rent on account of white-washing, repairs etc. carried out by him after reply notice dated 11th January, 1971. The respondent in his replication denied that the appellant carried out any electricity work or that he paid advance rent of Rs. 45.00 or that he ever carried out any white washing or repairs in the premises. He however, admitted that a sum of Rs. 500.00 was received by him by cheque. The date of payment of Rs. 500.00 is not pleaded by cither party. The learned counsel for the paties however state at the bar that the amount was paid by means of two cheques of Rs. 300.00 and Rs. 2UO.00 inJuly 1971. The Additional Rent Controller on 4th April, 19 72 passed an order under section 15(1) of the Act directing the appellant to deposit all arrears of rent at Rs. 55.00 per month with effect from 1st October, 19b9 after adjusting Rs. 590.80 on account of alleged electricity works, Rs. 45.00 on account of alleged advance rent paid and 500.00 admittedly received by the respondent, total Rs. 1135.20, within one month and continue to deposit future monthly rent at the said rate by the fifteenth of the succeeding month. The appellant's counsel states that a sumofRs.569.20was deposited on 12th May 1972 and Rs. 275.00 on 19th September, 1972 in pursuance of the order dated 4th Aptil, 1972 passed under section 15(1) of the Act. The appellant admits that he did not deposit any other amount. The respondent filed an application for striking off the defence of the appellant. Admittedly rent was not deposited by him. The defence of the tenant was struck off. After recording evidence the Additional Rent Controller passed the order of eviction on ground of non-payment. As the appellant had not complied with the order passed under section 15(1) of the Act, he was not given benefit of section 14(2) of the Act. The appellant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which was dismissed on 14th September, 1973. Hence this second appeal.