JAI KUMAR Vs. JANKI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the tenant is directed against, the order dated 5-3-1974 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the eviction Order passed against the appellant by the Addl. Rent Controller was confirmed and his appeal was dismissed :

(2.) The reispondent-landlord instituted a petition on on 12-8-1970 against the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent with the allegations that the appellant had neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent due from 26-10-1969 in spite of service of notice of demand and termination of tenancy dated 5-6-1970 served on him on 10-6-1970. The eviction petition was contested by the appellant. Various pleas were raised including one that the premises were situated in a slum area and that no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served. It was also pleaded that the appellant had deposited the arrears of rent in the Court of the Addl. Rent Controller.

(3.) The learned Addl. Rent Controller passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and directed the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 40.00 per month w.e.f. 26-10-1969 within one month from the date of the order and further rent month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month. According to the said order the deposit had to be made on 21-11-1970. 'However, the appellant did not deposit the rent on 21-11-1970 and instead the rent was deposited on 23-11-1970. The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that he had presented the challan for the deposit of the rent to the court on 21-11-1970. The said date happened to be Saturday and by the time the challan was returned to him, the banking hours had finished and the amount could not be tendered in the bank. 22-11-1970 being Sunday the rent was deposited on 23-11-1970. Meanwhile the respondent filed an application under Section 15(7) of the Act for stricking out the defence of the appellant on the ground that he had not complied with the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act. The learned Addl. Rent Controller dismissed the application under Section 15(7) filed by the respondent on the ground that the default was not wilful and as such the defence could not be struck off. After recording evidence, the learned Addl. Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that he had deposited the arrears of rent in the court of the Addl. Rent Controller as alleged by him and as such there was no default, It was further held that the appellant not having complied with the order under Section 15(1) of the Act was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act since the time for depositing the rent under Section 15(1) of the Act could not be extended by the Addl. Rent Controller. Consequently an eviction order was passed against the appellant.