S. SOHAN SINGH TAILOR Vs. SHRI ADITYA NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - This is an appeal by the tenant under Sec. 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The respondent, Shri Aditya Narain, had moved an application for eviction of the tenant. appellant Shri Sohan Singh on the ground of non-payment of rent. The case of the landlord was that the tenant had not complied with a notice of demand served on him under Sec. 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This being a second default within the meaning of Sec. 14 (2) of the Act, meant that the tenant could not take advantage of that provision and avoid ejectment by depositing the arrears of rent in Court.

(2.) The case of the landlord was accepted by the Additional Rent Controller as well as by the Rent Control Tribunal. The present appeal by the tenant has been filed along with an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The decision of the Rent Control Tribunal is dated 19th Jan., 1973, and the appeal in this Court was filed on 22nd Sept., 1973. The prescribed period of Limitation is sixty days and the period taken for getting copies is about one month. This appeal was belated by about six months. An Affidavit was filed showing that the previous lawyer engaged by the appellant had misplaced the papers and did not discover till Sept., 1973 that he had to file the appeal. In any case, I admitted the appeal and gave notice under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act concerning the prayer for condonation of delay.

(3.) I have heard the appeal on merits. I need hardly say that the delay in this case is also quite inordinate. The appellant's case is that the decision of the courts below is erroneous in respect of three matters. Firstly, it is contended that it should have been held that the tenancy had not been terminated by serving a proper notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Secondly, it is contended that the notice of demand required by Sec. 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was not served in accordance with law on the tenant and thirdly, it was contended that even if that notice was properly served, the notice was invalid because it demanded rent at the rate of Rs. 22.50 per month whereas the standard rent was Rs. 5.00 per month. In fact, the case of the tenant is that the rent, if calculated at the rate of Rs. 5.00 per month has been overpaid, and therefore, there is no ground of eviction.