B N MITTAL Vs. V S GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal u/s 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is brought against an order made by the Rent Control Tribunal by which the defence of the tenant to a landlord's petition for recovery of possession was ordered to be strnck out. The Additional Rent Controller had declined to strike out the defence, and his order was reversed by the Tribunal.

(2.) The landlord's petition for recovery of possession was based on the ground that he needed the premises for occupation as a residence for himself and the members of his family dependent upon him, and, also on the ground that the tenant had caused substantial damage to the premises. On 3rd September 1974 Controller made an order u/s 15 (2) of the Act. He ordered the tenant to deposit arrears of rent with effect from 1st September, 1973 at the rate of Rs. 270 per month withhim one month, and to continue to deposit rent at that rate month by months by the 15th day of each succeeding month. It appears from this order made by the Controller that the tenant neither disputed the rate of rent nor the period for which arrears were due. He only raised the point that a co-owner of the premises also claimed the rent, and had filed a suit for partition of the property. Presumably, that was the reason why the Controller ordered that the rent would not be paid over to the landlord till he proved his 'exclusive title'.

(3.) On 20th May, 1976, the landlord filed an application u/s section 15 (7) of the Act for striking out the defence of the tenant as he had failed to comply with the order made u/s 15 (2). In his reply the tenant simply denied that he had failed to comply with that order. The true position as regard the deposits made by the tenant emerges clearly from a statement which was filed by the landlord before the Controller, and was not disputed by the tenant. (Table showing deposits and defaults is detailed in para 4)