PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. RENT CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the legality of the order dated January 22, 1973 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi, in a petition for eviction filed by the petitioner landlord' against Respondent No. 2 tenant has been challenged in the following circumstances.

(2.) The petition for eviction was filed by the landlord against the tenant on the ground that the tenant had failed to pay arrears of rent p the premies within two months of the day on which a notice of demand for the arrears had been served on*the tenant by the landlord within the meaning of clause (a)of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi-Rent Control Act, l958(hereinafter called the Act). In such a petition it is mandatory under section i5(l) that the Controller shall pass an order directing the tenant to pay to the landlord the rent of the premises at the rate at which it was last paid for the period for which the.arrears of rent were legally recoverable from the tenant including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which payment or deposit is made and to continue to pay or deposit month by month by the 15th of each month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. The Act does not provide for any exception to this rule embodied- in section 14(1).

(3.) The learned Rent Controller, however, thought that the rule embodied in section 15(1) was for the exclusive benefit of the tenant. That benefit is available to the tenant under the principal part of section 14(2) of the Act. Thereunder if after an order made under section 15(1) the tenant makes the payment of the rent as ordered, then the Controller would be bound to refuse the relief of recovery of possession to the landlord on the ground of non-payment of.rent. The proviso to section l4(2) however says that' the tenant shall not be entitled to the benefit of section 14(2) if having obtained such benefit once, he again makes a default in the payment of rent of those premises for three consecutive months. The tenant is said to have obtained the benefit of section 14(2) once and has apparently committed three con secutive defaults in payment of rent thereafter. The Controller, therefore, come to the conclusion that the benefit of section 14(2) would not be available to the-tenant in the present case even if the Controller were to make an order for payrnent of rent under section 15(1). The Controller, therefore, seems to think that the making of such an order undersection 15(1) would be pointless. He, therefore, refused to pass the order under section 15(1). It is that order dated January 22, 1973 refusing to pass the order undersection 15(1) which is under challenge before me.