JOTI PARSHAD Vs. GAJENDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's second appeal from order under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 and is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 4th October, 1963 dismissing the appellant's appeal from the order of the Rent Controller dated 30th March, 1963 holding that Gajendra Sharma (respondent in this Court) continued to be a tenant within the meaning of the definition contained in section 2 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and was, therefore, competent to file the application for fixation of standard rent of the suit permises as a tenant.

(2.) The circumstances leading to this litigation are that the landlord had initiated proceedings for eviction of the tenant under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 in which on 18th April, 1957, a consent decree for eviction was made. Thereafter the landlord went to the Slum Authority, but permission to evict the tenant was declined. On 2nd April, 1959, Gajendra Sharma tenant presented the petition out of which this appeal arises for fixation of standard rent under section 6 and 9 of the Delhi Rent Act of 1958. The standard rent was fixed in those proceedings by the Rent Controller, but on appeal preferred by the land- lord in the Rent Control Tribunal, he was allowed to amend his written statement whereby he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Such a prayer, it may be pointed out, had been refused by the Rent Controller earlier. The matter apparently went back to the Rent Controller and in March, 1963 it was decided by him that the parties between themselves had again accepted the position that Gajendra Sharma was tenant in the room in dispute belonging to Joti Parshad landlord. On this conclusion, the petition filed by Gajendra Sharma was held to be competent as he continued to be a tenant within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Rent Control Act, 1958.

(3.) On appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal disagreed with the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that no fresh contractual tenancy as held by the Controller had come into existence The Tribunal added that as permission to execute the ejectment decree had been refused, there was no subsisting decree for ejectment against the tenant, with the result that he did not ceased to be a tenant within the meaning of section 2(1} of the Rent Act of 1958. The appeal on this basis was dismissed.