KISHAN CHAND Vs. SRI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late Sh. Srichand was the owner/landlord of shop bearing No. 1372 Vaidwara, Delhi which was given on tenancy to late Sh. Kishan Chand on 27.6.1959 vide rent note of the same date on a monthly rent of Rs. 45.25 inclusive of house tax but exclusive of other charges. In the year 1975, an eviction petition was filed by the landlord against the tenant under Sections 14(1)(a), 14(1)(b) and 14(1)0) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereafter referred to as the 'said Act') alleging that the arrears of rent had not been paid. The eviction petition also set out that the landlord was compelled to file a Suit No. 260/70 for arrears of recovery of rent for a period of three years prior to the filing of the suit which was decreed. It was alleged that even after the decree, the rent had not been paid. Permission had to be sought from the competent authority under Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act. A further allegation made in the eviction petition was that the shop had been sublet to one Mr. Sukhan, a barber, in the month of April, 1972. Such subletting was alleged to be without the consent either in writing or otherwise of the landlord. After the proceedings were initiated before the competent authority (Slum), Sh. Sukhan is stated to have vacated the demised premises at the instance of the respondent. The third set of allegations was made in respect of the substantial damage to the shop and unauthorized addition and alteration.

(2.) The tenant raised a dispute in respect of the rate of rent, denying that he had sublet the shop or caused substantial damage to the premises.

(3.) The Additional Rent Controller found that it was undisputed that the suit for recovery of arrears of rent had been decreed by the Civil Court and the notice for arrears of rent were proved to have been duly served on the tenant. The rate of rent was found to be Rs. 45.25 per month. It was found that the matter was one of first default in terms of Section 14(1)(a) of the said Act and thus the tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the said Act. The tenant was thus called upon to deposit arrears of rent under Section 15(1) of the said Act.