RADHEY BAI Vs. SAVITRI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This S.A.O. has been filed by the legal representatives of the tenant against appellate order of Rent Control Tribunal dt. 23.1.73 by which appeal has been dismissed and order of Additional Controller dt. 24.9.70 striking off the defence of the tenant under sub-section (7) section 15 of the Act has been affirmed.

(2.) The premises in dispute are situate in 60, Daryaganj, Delhi, and were let out on a rent of Rs. 100.00 per month. On 16th March, 1964 the respondent landlady instituted a petition against Kundan Lal tenant, (the predecessor in-interest of the appellants) on the ground of unlawful subletting being specified in clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. On 23rd August, 1965 the respondent landlady filed an application under Section 15 (2) of the Act praying for an order to the tenant to deposit arrears of rent and future rent. On 24th September, 1965 the Controller passed the requisite order under section 15 (2) of the Act. praying for an order to the tenant to deposit arrears of rent and future rent. On 24th September, 1965 the Controller passed the requisite order under section 15 (2) of the Act. This order was passed againt the legal representatives of the tenant who are appellants before me. It directed them to pay or deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per month calculated from 1st March, 1964 within a perion of one month and thereafter continue to pay monthly rent at the said rate within 15 days of its becoming due. It is not disputed that the appellants deposited the rent for some time in compliance with the said order.

(3.) However, on 17th February, 1966 the main petition for eviction was dismissed in default of appearance of the respondent landlady and an application filed for restoration was dismissed by the Additional Controller. Feeling aggrieved, the landlady filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal and by order dated 5th February, 1969 the appeal was allowed and the main petition for eviction was restored to its original number and directed to be heard according to law.