BALBIR SINGH Vs. MANMOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal under Sec. 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi confirming that of the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi under Sec. 15(1) of the Act.

(2.) The premises in dispute were let out to the appellant by late Shrimati Tara H. K. Lal on a monthly rent of Rs. 900.00 . Subsequently on the death of the landlady the respondent herein, one of the heirs of the landlady, filed an application for the eviction of the appellant from the premises on the ground that the appellant had failed to pay rent legally recoverable from him notwithstanding the expiry of the period of two months from the service of notice of demand in that behalf. The application was resisted by the appellant inter alia, on the ground that the application was not maintainable in the absence of other heirs of the landlady; that no notice of demand had been served on the appellant; that after the service of the notice of demand, if any, the matter had been settled between the appellant and Miss Prein Lal, one of the other heirs of the landlady, as a result of which the notice of demand stood waived and the cause of action for the application did not survive; and that the amount claimed by the respondent was, in any event, not legally recoverable partly because of the payments made by the appellant and partly because there had been an abatement of rent.

(3.) After hearing the parties the learned Addl. Rent Controller made an order under Sec. 15(1) of the Act directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,402.00 besides arrears of rent for the period 1 -10 -1971 up to date at the agreed rate within a month of the order and to continue to deposit future rent by the 15th of each following month. In the course of the order the learned Addl. Rent Controller observed that the relationship of landlord and tenant, the agreed rate of rent and receipt of notice were admitted. The plea that the application was not maintainable in the absence of the other heirs of the deceased landlady was noticed but not considered. The contention that the notice stood waived on account of a subsequent settlement was dispelled.