PRABHATI Vs. BUDHO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Second Appeal the appellant, who was defendant in the proceedings filed by the respondents for his ejectment challenges the order of the Rent Control Tribunal by which the Tribunal has confirmed in appeal the order made by the Controller for the eviction of the appellant from the premises in dispute.

(2.) The appellant has been in occupation of the demised premises as a tenant and was served with a notice of February 17, 1969 on behalf of the respondents terminating the tenancy of the appellant and requiring him to pay the arrears of rent due until February 12, 1969. The notice was eventually exhibited as Ex. AW3/1 in the proceedings tiled by the respondents on May 4, 1971 seeking ejectment of the appellant inter alia, on the ground that the appellant had been guilty of non-payment of rent and that a sum of Rs. 208.00 was due from the appellant for the period December 13, 1969 to April 12, 1971. There was, however, no averment in the petition for eviction that the appellant had failed to make the payment of any rent after the notice of demand as envisaged by Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. With the petition, however, a copy of the notice referred to above was enclosed. The ejectment was also sought on the ground of bonafide need of the respondents who claimed to be the owners of the property in dispute.

(3.) By an order made by the Controller on August 24, 1971 under Section 15(1) of the Act, the appellant was required to deposit rent every month, and on the appellant's committing default in that, the defence of the appellant was struck off by an order made by the Controller on June 3,1972. In reply to the application for striking off of the defence, the appellant had set up a plea that the delay in the deposit was on account of the illness of the appellant. The Controller, however, found that there was delay in the deposit which he had no power to condone and the defence of the appellant was accordingly struck off as a result of which by an order made on 13-7-72, the eviction of the appellant was ordered on the ground that the premises in dispute were bonafide required by the respondent. This order of the Controller was challenged in appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal but the order of eviction was upheld. Before the Tribunal the appellant having failed to challenge the order in an appeal against the said order, it had become final and could not be assailed in the appeal against the final order of ejectment and reliance for this proposition was placed on Durga Swaroop vs. Murari Lal, 1964 P. L. R. 586, Urmila Rani vs. Shrimati Savitri Devi, 1970 (2) R. C. R. 763, L. T. Thadani vs. Yogeshwar Dayal, 1971 (7) D. L. T. 275, Sanyukta Uppal vs. Vidya Prakash, 1972 R. C. R. 168 and Hukam Chand vs. Smt. Khushalya Devi S.A.O. 131 of 1969 decided on Aug. 25, 72. The plea of appellant that there was sufficient cause for delay in making the deposit because the appellant was ill, was dispelled on the ground that the nature of the illness had not been given in reply to the application under Section 15 (7) of the Act nor in the application for condonation of delay and no medical certificate had been filed and that the plea was very vague. The findings of the Controller that the respondent bonafide required the premises for their residence and were owners were upheld.