D R MALHOTRA Vs. P R CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. R. Malhotra, the tenant ha.s filed this second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), against the appellate orderof Mr. N. C. Kochar, Rent Control Tribunal, dated 7th February, 1974, by which he has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of Mr.Jaspal Singh, Controller, dated 5th January, 1973, finally striking off the defence of the appellant herein under Section 15(7) of the Act.

(2.) The material facts of the case are that the respondent landlord instituted a petition for eviction of the appellant on 19th August, 1970 on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent inspite of a prescribed notice of demand, being the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The arrears claimed were from 1st February, 1966 at the agreed rate of R.s. 120.00 per month. The eviction petition was contested by the tenant, appellant, herein and one of the objections raised by the tenant was that the landlord had tortuously deprived him of a part of the tenated premises and as such was not entitled to recovery of any rent. It was also contended that a suit for recovery of the arrears of rent claimed in the petition had been instituted in a civil court, where the question of suspension or apportionment of rent would be decided- Mrs, Duggal,, then Controller, after taking the entire matter into consideration and examining the rival contentions of the parties, passed an order dated 2nd December, 1970 under Section 15(3) of the Act, directing the tenant to pay lo the landlord or deposit in the court arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 90.00 per month as interim rent with effect from 1st July, 1966 within a period of one month and continue to deposit future montilly rent by the 15th of each succeeding month at the same rate. This order had been expressed to be without prejudice to the respective contentions of the partics raised in the petition. It is significant lo notice that the Controller by this order directed payment of rcnt at the rate of Rs. 90.00 per month, instead of contract rate of Rs. !20.00 pcr month and directed the payment with effect from 1st July, 1966 instead of 1st February', 1966, which had been claimed by the landlord to be the date from which the arrears were due. By this order, both the partics felt aggrieved and filed appeals under Section 38 of the Act. The said appeals came up for hearing before the Rent Control Tribunal, then presided over by Mr. G. C. Jain. The parties made statements before the Tribunal and the appeals were disposed of on compromise by order dated 1st March, .1971. A detailed reference to the said order will be made herein after. Suffice it to say, that by the said order, the Rent Control Tribunal modified the impugned order of Mrs. Duggal dated 2nd December, 1970 and reduced the rate of interim rent from Rs. 90.00 to Rs. 75.00 per month but directed the payment of arrears of rent with effect from 1st February, 1966 in place of 1st July, 1966, which had been ordered by the Controller. He also allowed one month's lime to pay the arrears and directed the payment of future rent within 15 days of its becoming due. A further provision was made for staying the eviction proceedings before the Controller till the disposal of the civil suit pending between the partics, subject to the condition that the tenant must deposit the arrears of rent and future rent in accordance with the directions. Both the appeals were accordingly disposed of without prejudice to the rights of the partics.

(3.) It appears that the tenant appellant before me deposited the arrears of rent in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal within the period allowed. It also appears that the tenant paid future monthly rent for some time but default occurred in the payment of rent for the months of August and November, 1971. Under these circumstances, the landlord filed an application on 18th March, 1972 complaining of the default by the tenant in compliance with the order of the Rent Control Tribunal and praying th,a,t the defence of the tenant be struck off under Section 15(7) of the Act. A notice of the application was issued to the tenant who filed a reply dated 23rd September. 1972, supported by an affidavit. In this reply, he took up the pica that the above mentioned order of Mr. G. C. Jain then. Rent Control Tribunal dated 1st March, 1971 was not legally correct and binding and that he had deposited the rent upto date and was not at all in default. He also submitted that the amount of rent .at Rs. 75.00 per month was only a concessional rent, which could not be ordered under section 15 of the Act.