HINDUSTAN COMPUTERS LIMITED Vs. KAUSHLAYA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy between the parties in this second appeal which is directed against order dated t7th November 1984 of the Rent Control Tribunal lies in a narrow compass. The facts germane to the decision of this appeal in brief are that a commercial flat bearing No. 601, Siddhartlia Building, 96-Nehru place, New Delhi, was let to appellant No. 1 by M/s. Bathia Motors (P) Limited sometime in November 1978 at Rs. 3.500.00 per mensem. The facility of using two telephones installed in the premises was also made available to the tenant. Subsequently, the landlord M/s Bathia Motors (P) Ltd. transferred their rights and interest in the premises in question to the respondent Smt. Kaushalya Rani sometime in January 1979 and thereupon the appellant attorned to the respondent. On 17th Februaly 1983 the respondent moved an application for eviction of the appellants from the premises in question, inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was averred that appellant No. 1 was in arrears of rent with effect from 1st July 1982 and he had neither paid nor tendered the same despite repeated demands and service of notice of demand dated 3rd September, 1982. The said application was resisted by the appellants.

(2.) During the course of eviction proceedings, the respondent moved an application for an order under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (.hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said application was resisted by the appellants on the ground that under the agreement of lease the monthly rent payable for the premises in question was Rs. 2,500.00 only because the balance amount of Rs. l,000.00 was payable for (a) Rs. 500.00 for fixtures and fittings, and (b) Rs. 500.00 for the facility of telephones. Subsequently, however, the rent was enhanced by appellant No. 1 by l0% and he stared paying a total of Rs. 3,850.00 per mensem with effect from May 1981. Howevel, the two telephones were disconnected in January 1982 and thus the total rent stood reduced by Rs. 500.00 per mensem to Rs. 3,350.00 per mensem with effect from January 1982. It was further contended that the respondent-M/s Bathia Motors (P) Ltd. had agreed that in the event of the facility of the two telephones being withdrawn both M/s. Balhia Motors (P) Ltd. and the respondent would jointly and severally be liable to refund the security deposit of Rs. 10,500.00 to appellant No. 1. Subsequently also the respondent confirmed that in the event of the two telephones being diconneeted for any reason; appellant No. 1 would be at liberty to adjust the security amount of Rs. 10,500.00 from the rent of the premises.

(3.) The respondent-landfady controverted this plea saying that the contention of the appellants regarding disconnection of the telaphones was without any basis because the charges for the telephones had to be paid by the tenant and if the same were not paid and the telephones were disconnected as a sequel thereto the appellants could not take advantage thereof She also denied the averment of the tenant that Rs. 500.00 were payable per mensem for user of the telephones. She asserted that their contention about fixtures and fittings too was irrelevant. She pointed out that in view of the admission of the appellants that the rent was being paid at Rs. 3,850..00 per mensem from May 1981 onwards, there was no question of the appellants being not liable to pay rent at the rate at which the same was last paid. She characterised as baseless the contention of the appellants that on disconnection of the telephones the rent stood reduced automatically by Rs> 500.00 per mensem.