DEBI RAM Vs. DEVI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that Devi Chand, respondent herein alleging himself to be the owner-landlord of the premises forming part of house No. 2372, Gali No. 177, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar, Delhi, filed an eviction petition against Shri Debi Ram appellant herein under Section l4(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of non-payment of rent. The Addl. Rent Controller vide his detailed judgment dated 29.1,1977 held that a default had been committed by the tenant appellant herein in terms of Section l4(1)(a) in not paying or tendering legally recoverable rent to the landlord respondent herein within 2 months of the service of notice of demand. As it was the first default, so the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was given to the tenant subject to the condition that the tenant should comply with the modified order under Section 15(1) to the effect that he should pay or deposit arrears of rent from 12.12.1974 upto the date of order at the rate of Rs. 60.00 per month after deducting the amount which he had already deposited in compliance of order dated 5.7.76 within one month. In case of compliance of the order u/Sec. 15(1), the eviction petition under Section 14(l)(a) would stand dismissed and the tenant would be deemed to have taken the benefit of Section 14(2) and in case of default in compliance of Section 15(1), the order of eviction would be deemed to have been passed against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent.

(2.) Later on, another application was filed before the Addl. Rent Controller mentioning therein that compliance u/Sec. 15(1) was not made and therefore, the possession of the suit premises may be got delivered to the landlord. The plea of the tenant was that he did not commit any default and that he had complied with the order u/Sec. 15(1). Any how, he submitted that if there was any shortage in the deposit of rent, it was Rs. 34.84, and that was on account of erroneous legal advice. He had been sending rent to the landlord even by money order but he avoided to receive the same with the motive to get the premises vacated somehow or the other. That plea of the tenant was not accepted by the Addl. Rent Controller and warrant of possession were ordered to be Issued against the appellant tenant in terms of eviction order dated 29.1.1977.

(3.) Aggrieved, the tenant filed first appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal who vide his detailed order dated 9.5.78 did not agree with the contention of the appellant herein and held that there was nothing wrong in passing the composite order under Section 15(1) and that of eviction under Section 14(1) (a) of the Act and dismissed the appeal. Not satisfied with the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, this second appeal has been filed before this Court.