YUNUS Vs. KANHIA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Judgment will dispose of four appeals. SAO 234. 235 236 and 247 all of 1969. They ha.vc been filed by the various tenants occupying the respective premises in dispute. The J-e.spondent in all the appeals is the landlord, who is the owner of the property. The appeals have been filed under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). and are directed against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 1st May, 1969, by which it has allowed the four applications of the landlord for fixation of standard rent and has fixed the various figures of rent for the appellants. The Additional Controller by order dated 26th August, 1968, had dismissed the said peli- lions on the ground of bar of limitation imposed by section .12 of the Act.

(2.) The material facts of the case are that a large property bearing House No. 412, Ward No. 9, Chitii Gate, Delhi, was an evacueeproperty and was purchased by Kanhia Lal, respondent herein, for a sum of Rs. 9,800 under a certificate of sale dated 16th March, 1966, which was effective from the date of purchase, viz. 26th November, 1965. The rent of the premises under the Custodian was quite small and varied from Rs. 5 to Rs. 9.12 per month. The landlord on 24th October, 1966, that is to say, within one year of the date of the purchase, instituted the petitions under section 9 of the Act for fixation of standard rent. The petitions were contested on various grounds including the bar of limitation. It was further pleaded by the tenant that they were old tenants of the respective premises under a Muslim evacuee landlord since 1943 and that the Act had allowed two years time to file petitions for fixation of standard rent from the date of the commencement of tenancy or commencement of the Act whichever was later. This plea prevailed with the Additional Controller, but the Rent Control Tribunal on appeal held that the Act for purposes of the present cases came into force only in March. 1966 when the property was sold to the landlord and not earlier and so the applications were not barred by lime. It, therefore, allowed the petitions with costs and fixed the standard rent in the case of Mohd. YUQMS (appellant in SAO 234/69) at Rs. 10 and in other cases at Rs. 15 per month.

(3.) Mr. G. N. Aggarwal, counsel appearing for the landlord has raised two preliminary objections, namely, (1) the certified copies of the order of the Rent Control Tribunal as well as of the Additional Controller which have been filed in the present appeals had been obtained by Mohd. Yi.!i1us only and they have been made use of by the other appellants as well. The second objection is that short orders passed by the Rent Control Tribunal in the various appeals had not been riled in this coi'rt and those orders had the force of the degree and so coi.ild not be dispensed with. Hence the appeals are not competent.