VED PARKASH JAIN Vs. BIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a tenant in shop No. C-13, Krishna Nagar, Delhi owned by the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- since the year 1969. The respondent sent a notice of demand dated 25th November 1974 to the appellant for arrears of rent @ Rs. 60/- per month from Ist March 1972 to 30th Nov. 1974 and also for causing substantial damage to the suit premises. A reply was sent by the appellant to the notice of demand by letter dated 29th December, 1974. Dissatisfied with the reply sent by the appellant, the respondent herein filed a petition for eviction against the appellant on 4th March 1975 on the ground of : (i) non-payment of rent @ Rs. 60/- per month from Ist March 1972 to 28th February 1975; and (ii) causing substantial damage to the shop in question. A written statement was filed by the appellant on 15th May 1975 wherein the appellant pleaded that rent upto 30th Sep. 1974 was paid to the respondent-landlady prior to the notice of demand which was collected by Shri Jagdish Chander i.e. the husband of the respondent. The allegation regarding damage to the shop in question was also denied.

(2.) ON 3rd June 1975 the Additional Rent Controller passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing the appellant to deposit rent @ Rs. 60/- per month with effect from 1st October, 1974 within one month and continue to deposit the rent at the same rate by the 15th of each succeeding month. The Additional Rent Controller in the said order observed that the order for depositing rent for the period prior to 30th September 1974 would be passed after the evidence was concluded. The appellant complied with the order of the Additional Rent controller without any default till September 1975. He, however, deposited the rent for the months of October, November and December 1975 in January 1976 and again deposited the rent for the months of May and June 1976 on 8th July 1976. Since there was delay in depositing the rent, an application was filed by the appellant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure on 19th January 1977 in the Court of the Additional Rent Controller for condonation of delay. The respondent also filed an application under Section 15(7) of the Act for striking off the defence of the appellant because of the afore-mentioned defaults. While there two applications were pending, the proceedings in the eviction petition were continued. However, the appellant failed to produce his evidence on a day fixed for his evidence and, therefore, by order dated 21.1.1977 the Additional Rent Controller closed the evidence of the appellant; struck off his defence and passed an order of ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. By the same order, the Additional Rent Controller also rejected the application of the appellant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condonation of delay both on the ground that the Additional Rent Controller had no power to condone the delay and also because she was of the view that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 21.1.1977 the appellant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which was allowed by order dated 18th August 1978. The Rent Control Tribunal set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller and remanded the case back to the Additional Rent Controller and directed the appellant to lead evidence in the matter. The case was again dealt with the Additional Rent Controller after remand and by order dated 27th February 1979 the Additional Rent Controller passed an order of ejectment against the appellant. The Additional Rent Controller refused to grant benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act to the appellant because of the default made by the appellant after the Additional Rent Controller had passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Additional Rent controller dated 27th February 1979 filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal on 26th March 1979 which was also dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal vide order dated 28th May 1980. The present second appeal is directed against this order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 28th May 1980.

(3.) FROM the above mentioned facts, it is clear that the only point to be determined in this appeal is whether the delay in deposit of rent made by the appellant after the Additional Rent Controller passed the order under Section 15(1) of the Act was impliedly condoned by the Rent Control Tribunal because if this delay was condoned then even if the Additional Rent Controller had subsequently come to the conclusion on remand that the appellant was proved tohave been in default for the period 1st March 1972 to 30th September 1974 he would be entitled to benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act because then it would have been the first default.