MOTILAL KHANNA Vs. ABDUL JALIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a tenant judgment- debtor who has filed an appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 3rd December, 1975, by which the appeal has been dismissed and the order of the Additional Controller dated 31st October, 1975 has been affirmed; as a result the appellant has finally been held liable to be dispossessed in execution of the order for eviction which had already been passed.

(2.) The material facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The appellant is a tenant of the respondent in respect of shop No. 4231-32, Jogiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi, on a rent of Rs. 30.00 per month. On 16th October, 1974 the respondent after serving the requisite statutory notice, instituted a petition for eviction against the appellant, on the ground of non-payment of rent and subletting, specified in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The ground of unlawful subletting was given up by the respondent, while the ground of non-payment of rent succeeded and the Additional Controller passed a conditional order of eviction. It was to this effect : Out of the rent due, a sum of Rs. 352.50 had already been paid and the balance of Rs. 50.00 for the period ending 31st December, 1974 along with rent of Rs. 30.00 for January, 1975 (total Rs. 80.00 ) was ordered to be paid or deposited within a period of one month from the date of the order and it was directed that if the appellaru paid or/deposited the same, the petition for eviction would stand dismissed, but if he failed to pay it the appellant would be liable to eviction. This order was passed on 28th January, 1975.

(3.) On 26th February, 1975 the appellant judgment debtor alleges that he sent a money order for Rs. 80.00 to the respondent at his residential address. By the way, it may be noticed that the respondent is a practising lawyer, who would normally be not found at his house on the days the court is working. The money order was, however, redirected to his office in the court and the same was tendered to the respondent on 3rd March, 1975 and was refused by him on the ground that the tender was beyond time. The money order was returned to the appellant on 10th March, 1975. Subsequcntly, on 13th March, 1975 the appellant made the deposit with the Controller under section 27 of the Act. The question that arises for determination is whether the tender of the amount by money order on 26th February, 1975 or thereabout, constituted a proper tender and a valid discharge of the obligation under the order for eviction that had been passed against the appellant. The Additional Controller as well as the appellate Tribunal have found against the appellant and held that the appellant had not complied with the order and, therefore, rendered himself liable to be dispossessed in execution of the order for eviction.