HORI LAL Vs. TEK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shu Hori Lal has approached this Court on second appeal under section 39 of the D Jhi Rent Control Act No. 59 of 1958 from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 20th August 1964 dismissing the appellant's appeal from the order of the Rent Controller dated 20th January 1964 granting to Tek Chand (respondent in this Court) his prayer for recovery of possession of the premises in dispute against the appellant.

(2.) It is necessary at this stage to go back to 19th September, 1963 when in Tek Chand's petition for ejectment of Hori Lal it was observed by the Rent Controller that admittedly Hori Lal was in possession of these premises. In the order, the Rent Controller then proceeded to observe as follows :-

(3.) When the case was again taken up by the Rent Controller after the appellate order just mentioned, Hori Lal did not deposit the arrears of rent as directed by the Tribunal. An application was made on his behalf that he was a poor man and time may be extended for making the necessary deposit. The learned Rent Controller felt helpless, observing that there was no provision of law under which he could grant extension of the time granted by the learned Appellate Court for deposit of the arrears of rent. In these circumstances, he struck out Hori Lal's defence against eviction under section 15(7) of the Rent Control Act. After striking out th defence, he directed that Tek Chand's evidence be recorded. Tek Chand himself appeared as A.W.I, in which he deposed that the respondent bifore the Rent Controller was his tenant and that notice of demand was served on him as per Exhibit A/2. of which the acknowledgement receipt was exhibit A/4 and the postal receipt Exhibit A/3. He also deposed about the failure on the part of Hori Lal today rent and to deposit the amount due in spite of the order of the Rent Controller dated 19th September, 1263 against which the appeal had also failed- After this evidence, the Rent Controller on the same day i. e. 20th January 1964, passed an order for Hori Lal's eviction. Against this order an appeal was preferred in the Rent Control Tribunal in which of course, it was prayed in the end that the order of the Controller dated 20th January 1964, striking out the defence and the final order of eviction dated 20th January 1964, be set aside. In ground No. 6, it was pleaded that it was not imperative on the Controller to strike out Hori Lal's defence but it required exercise of discretion on the part of the Controller and when the very relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was in dispute the defence should not have been struck out but the case should have been proceeded with to trial on merits requiring Tek Chand to establish such relationship between the parties. The learned Tribunal in its order on appeal observed that the tenant had not filed any appeal against the order of the Rent Controller striking out his defence under section 15(7) of the Rent Control Act, with the result that the said order had become final invi".w of the provisions of section 43 of the said Act. On the merits, the Tribunal felt that the order of eviction had been rightly made on the facts and circumstances of this case. Section 14(1) (a) of the Rent Control Act was held fully applicable to justify the order of ejectment. On second appeal in this Court, Shri P. S. Safeer, learned counsel for Hori Lal, has read out to me the impugned order as well as the earlier orders, of the Rent Controller dated 19th September 1963 and of the Tribunal dated 17th December 1963. He has also read out to me the final orders of the Rent Controller dated 20th January 1964 as also of the statement of Tek Chand of the same date. After going through this part of the record, the learned counsel has submitted that without coming to a positive finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, the Rent Controller or the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make the order of deposit, and still less were they justified in making an order striking out the defence of the present appellant and of making an order of his eviction.