YOG RAJ SRIVASTAVA DECD Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated January 3. 1977.

(2.) The dispute is in respect of first and second floors of house No. 1270. Pahari Imli. Delhi. The appellant Yog Raj Srivastava (since deceased) was in possession of the said premises as a tenant under Smt. Pushpa Srivastava and others, predecessors-in-interest of the present respondent Naresh Kumar, as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 40.00 On February 19, 1970 the landlords brought a petition for his eviction under clauses (a), (b) and (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of 'the Act'. The grounds under clauses (b) and (e) were neither pressed before the Tribunal nor before me and therefore do not survive. So far as clause (a) is concerned the averment made was that the tenant had failed to pay the arrears of rent in spite of service of notice of demand. Asuit for the recovery of rent for the period from August 1, 1963 to April 30, 1967 was pending in the civil court.

(3.) The tenant resisted the petition and claimed certain adjustments. An order under Section 15 (1) of 'the Act' was passed by the Additional Controiler on August 31, 1970. The tenant was directed to deposit the decretal amount of Rs 1400.00 i e. the arrears of rent for the period upto April 30, 1967, subject matter of the civil suit which was by then decreed and also to deposit the arrears of rent with effect from May 1, 1967 upto date at the rate of Rs. 40.00 per month within one month of the order and also to deposit future rent month by month by the 15th of each following month. On October 21, 1970 the landlords moved an application under Section 15 (7) of 'the Act' for striking out the defence of the tenant on the plea that the tenant had failed to deposit Rs. 1400.00 (the decretal amount) as directed by the Additional Controller and had thus committed a default in complying the said order. The tenant admitted the default but explained that it was because he was intimated to deposit the arrears of rent for the period May 1, 1967 onward which he duly deposited within time. He deposited the decretal amount of Rs. 1400.00 and costs in the court of the Subordinate Judge, lit Class who had passed the decree soon after he came to know of this part of ?he order.