HUKUMAT RAI Vs. JAGDISH CHANDER AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The exact question which falls for determination in this appeal is whether if at the time of the letting a sum of money is paid to the landlord by the tenant to serve as security for rent, it would amount to consideration in addition to the rent within the meaning of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

(2.) The respondent, Jagdish Chander Ahuja, is a tenant in half portion of the ground floor of House No. 2460 comprising of two rooms, a store, a kitchen, latrine, with a common bathroom court-yard and lawn. The said house belonged to Smt. Amrit Rani wife of Hakumat Rai, appellant. The respondent filed an application under section 13 of the Act for directing refund of Rs. 3,300. The direction was sought against (1) aforesaid Smt. Amrit Rani, (2) Hakumat Rai, appellant and (3) R. S. Bhalla, respondent No. 2 who had been described as respondents. The case made out for the aforesaid direction of refund was that the aforesaid premises had been let on June 9, 1964 and "in connection with the said letting, petitioner was wrongfully made to pay Rs. 3,300 in addition to rent". In the additional statement to this application, the respondent stated that Smt. Amrit Rani was the owner of the house, Hakumat Rai was her husband and R. S. Bhalla, a brother of Smt. Amrit Rani was a property broker. It was alleged that the respondent being in need of residential accommodation approached R. S. Bhalla and explained his needs and Bhalla introduced him to Hakumat Rai. The respondent was informed later that the tenancy premises "could be let and possession thereof delivered to him he was prepared to pay Rs. 75 per mensem as monthly rent and, alongwith it make a deposit of Rs. 3,300 to serve as security for rent". The respondent alleged that he paid Rs. 400 as advance to Bhalla on June 6, 1964 against his receipt stating that the balance would be paid by Tuesday next which fell on June 9, 1964 when rentnote would be, executed and possession of the premises delivered. The respondent is alleged to have made arrangements for payment of the balance amount and on June 9, 1964. met Hakumat Rai and Bhalla and paid Rs. 2,900 to the former who was acting for and on behalf of Smt. Amrit Rani who was stated to be away to Rohtak on a short visit. The respondent alleged that in addition he paid Rs. 55 being the advance rent for the remaining days of June, 1964 and vacant possession was given to the respondent and a rent deed on stamped paper was executed. He further alleged that in spite of demand he was not furnished the receipt for Rs. 2,900. On October 20, 1964, the respondent filed the application for refund of Rs. 3,300. Apart from other pleas taken in their written statement, Smt. Amrit Rani and Hakumat Rai denied the receipt of Rs. 3,300 and asserted that only an amount of Rs. 55 had been received by them on June 9, 1964 as being the rent for the remaining days of June.

(3.) The parties led oral and documentary evidence before the 1st Additional Rent Controller who was dealing with the matter and by his order dated November 27, 1967 he directed Hakumat Rai, appellant and his wife Smt. Amrit Rani to refund Rs. 3,300 to the respondent.