SARABJIT SINGH Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to was the Act), by the tenant against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dated 7th October, 1976, by which he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Additional Controller dated 12th May, 1975, dismissing the objections of the appellant against the execution of the order for eviction.

(2.) The material facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The respondent is the landlord and owner of the property No. C-382, Defence Colony, New Delhi, which had been let out to the appellent on a rent of Rs. 650.00 per month. On 3rd January, 1968 the respondent filed a petition for eviction of the appellant on the ground of bona fide personal necessity mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The petition was allowed and the order for eviction of the appellant from the premises in dispute was passed. Against this order, the appellant filed a first appeal before the Tribunal, which came up for hearing before Mr. G.C. Jain. On 25th April, 1970 the parties compromised the matter and the appellant before me withdrew the appeal, while the respondent allowed him three years time to vacate. The Tribunal, therefore, ordered the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn and the appellant to vacate the premises after the expiry of three years, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The three years mentiomed in the order expired on 25th April, 1973. As a result of that order, the tenancy rights of the appellant stood legally determined and his eviction had been ordered though he had been allowed to continue in possession under cover of the order for three years.

(3.) It appears that the compromise before the Tribunal did not make any provision for payment of the rent and a large amount of arrears of rent became due from the petitioner for the peried commencing from 28th March, 1969. The respondent landlord gave an un- fortunate notice dated 14th September, 1971 (Ex. JDW 3/1). In this notice, the respondent through his counsel not only demanded arrears of rent, but also purported to terminate the tenancy of the appellant with effect from the expiry of the tenancy month in October, 1971. Not getting a response, the respondent instituted a fresh petition for eviction on 22nd December, 1971. This petition was first allowed exparte and then the exparte order was set aside and the petition was contested by the appellant. Eventually, on 28th February, 1975 the Additional Controller dismissed the petition on the ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between the parties and the petition was, therefore, not maintainable. It appears that on 27th March, 1972 the respondent also instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent which suit is probably still pending.