CHATTAR SINGH Vs. BANARSI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been filed by the tenant against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 19th September, 1973, by which it has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Controller, dated 4th May, 1973, finally ordering eviction of the tenant appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent mentioned in clause (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 14 of the Act, read with section 14(2).

(2.) . The material facts of the case are that the appellant is a tenant in respect of premises at East Patel Nagar, on a rent of Rs. 3 5.00 per month. On the previous occasion he fell into arrears of rent and a petition for his eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent was instituted. This was disposed of by order of the Controller dated 19th August, 1960 (certified copy of which is Ex. A2 on the file). A detailed reference to this order will be made hereafter, suffice it to say for the moment that the order directed the appellant before me to pay Rs. 1000.00 as rent up to 31st July, 1960 and future rent at the rate of 35.00 per month, month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month ; and in default he was to be evicted. The appellant again fell into arrears for the period from September, 1967 to August, 1970 and the respondent landlord after serving the notice or demand and determination of tenancy (Ex. A3) instituted the petition giving rise to this appeal. The ground of eviction was non-payment of rent specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section 14 of the Act. It was further alleged that the appellant had been in arrears of rent for a consecutive period of three months and that he was not entitled to obtain the benefit of section 14(2) of the Act since he had already obtained the benefit in the earlier proceedings. The appellant contested the petition and raised a number of objections which were all repelled and the order for eviction was passed by the Controller, which was affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. One of the defences raised by the appellant that he had paid rent for the period in dispute was disbelieved by both the authorities below and the same being concluded by findings of fact has rightly not been agitated before me.

(3.) . Mr. Vohra, learned counsel appearing to support the appeal, has raised one main contention, namely, the previous order (Ex. A2) dated 19th August, 1960 can, in the circumstances of the case, not be deemed to be appellant having obtained the benefit under section 14(2) of the Act and as such the authorities below must have afforded another benefit against eviction to the appellant in the instant case The previous order (Ex A2) is reproduced below: