RAM PARKASH Vs. JAGMOHAN KHANNA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Order for eviction was passed against the appellant-tenant (herein to be called 'the tenant') under the respondents-landlords (herein to be called 'the landlords') in premises comprising of one godown and one shop bearing Nos. 2628 and 2679 respectively situate in Saddar Thana Road, Delhi, by Shri Jaspal Singh, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, on the 20th January, 1972, on the petition of the landlords claiming possession of the premises on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 19th April, 1970, which arrears in spite of notice of demand and termination of tenancy were not cleared by the tenant. The arrears were claimed at the rate of Rs. 46/- per month. The Additional Rent Controller allowed the petition of the landlords under clause (a) of section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein to be called 'the Act') and passed an order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the premises to the landlords. However, it was ordered that in case the appellant-tenant deposited in Court or paid to the landlords the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 46/- per month with effect from 1st May, 1970, upto date within one month from the date of the order after adjusting the amount deposited by the appellant-tenant vide challan receipt Exhibit R. W. 3/17, the tenant would be entitled to the benefit of section 14(2) of the Act in which case he shall not be liable to eviction under clause (a) of section 14(1) of the Act.

(2.) The landlords feeling aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal under section 38 of the Act before Shri G.C. Jain, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi.

(3.) The learned Tribunal accepted the contention of the landlords that the appellant-tenant had availed of the concession under section 14(2) of the Act in an earlier petition and he was, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the said provision in the instant proceedings and consequently the landlords were held to be entitled to an order for recovery of possession under section 14 (1)(a) of the Act. In the result, the appeal was accepted. Setting aside the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, the Tribunal granted an order of recovery of possession of the premises in dispute in favour of the landlords against the tenant.