SAEEDAN Vs. JWALA PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the tenant and is directed against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dated 6th August, by which it has affirmed the order of the Additional Controller dated 20th January, 1976 finally ordering eviction of the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent. The appellant is a tenant of the respondent in respect of the premises situated in Kucha Chelan, Daryaganj Delhi, on a rent of Rs. 4.50 per month. The respondent instituted the petition for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent, and bona fide personal need being specified in clauses (a) and (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The ground of bona fide personal necessity has been repelled by the trial Controller and has not been pressed before me. We are, therefore, concerned with the eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent.

(2.) It is material to state at this stage that previously the predecessor-in interest of the respondents instituted a petition for eviction on the ground, inter alia, of non-payment of rent in which an order under section 15 (1) of the Act was passed on 30th August, 1963. The appellant tenant complied with the order and a final order was passed on 2nd December, 1965 (Vide Ex. A-11) and the petition on the ground of non-payment of rent was dismissed since the order had been complie4 with, but this constituted the first benefit against eviction within the meaning of section 14(2) of the Act. The other grounds of eviction that had been urged had failed.

(3.) Later on the property came into the hands of the respondents and on 24th March, 1966 the respondents served a notice of demand (Ex. 42) claiming, rent for the period from 23rd December, 1965 to 22nd March, 1966. The notice required the appellant to pay arrears of rent within two months of the receipt of the notice failing which the petition for eviction was likely to be instituted against the appellant. It is the common ground that the appellant tenant did not comply with the notice.