PRAKASH NARAIN MATHUR Vs. SHANTI PRASHAD JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has bee preferred to impugn the order dated 5. 11. 2004 passed by the learned additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, (for short the 'rct') whereby the said RCT allowed the Respondent-tenants appeal under Section 38 of the delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'act') against the order dated 18. 5. 2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Delhi in E-10/1988 whereby he allowed the application filed by the petitioner-laadlord under Section 15 (7)of the Act and dismissed the Respondent's application for condonation of delay in depositing the rent, filed under Section 151 CPC and consequently struck off the, defence of the Respondent tenant. . . . . . .

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner landlord had preferred the aforesaid eviction Petition, inter alia, on the grounds contained in section 14 (l) (a) and 14 (1) (b) of the Act viz. non payment of rent and sub-letting. The petition was filed against the original tenant Shri Shanti Prasad Jain. In those proceedings during the life time of Shri Shanti Prasad Jain an order was passed under Section 15 (1) of the Act on 15. 3. 1989 directing the tenant to pay or deposit rent @ 105/- per month with effect from 1. 1. 1985 and to continue to pay or deposit rent at the said rate by 15th of each succeeding month. Duririg the lifetime of Shri Shanti Prasad Jain, undisputedly the rent was regularly paid in terms of the said order. One of the sons of Shri shanti Prasad Jain moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the year 1995 before the Rent Controller seeking impleadment on the grounds that he is a member of the HUF of Shri Shanti Prasad Jain and that he is running the business in the name and style of M/s. Vardhman Jewels (India)as the member of the HUP and that he was not a sub-tenant in the premises. This application filed by Sunil Kumar Jain was allowed by the learned Rent controller on 1. 9. 1995. Agains this order, the petitioner landlord preferred civil Revision No. 1043/1995. In this Revision Petition this court stayed further proceedings in the eviction petition.

(3.) SHRI Shanti Prasad Jain, the tenant passed away on 23. 5. 1997. After his death, admittedly, the rent was not paid in terms of the aforesaid order passed under- Section 15 (l) of the Act. The admitted position with regard to the default and the belated payment of rent is as follows: 1. Rent for the period 23. 5. 1997 to August 1999 was deposited on 2. 9. 1999. 2. Rent for the period September 1999 to September 2000 was deposited on 27. 3. 2000. 3. Rent for the period October 2000 to March 2003 was deposited on 27. 9. 2002.