HARNAM KAUR Vs. LACHHMAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been brought under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the order dated July 4, 1987, of the Rent Control Tribunal by which he set the aside order of Shri M.L. Mehta, Additional Rent Controller, passed on January 29, 1987.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that in a petition under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the respondent had moved an application under Section 15(2) of the said Act requiring the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 120.00 per month. As the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was in dispute, the Additional Rent Controller deferred the passing of the impugned order till after recording the evidence. Against that order the respondent filed the appeal an the Rent Control Tribunal gave the finding that prima facie there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller and passed the order under Section 15(4) requiring the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent with effect from February I, 1983, at the rate of Rs. 120.00 per month up-to-date within one month and continue to deposit month to month rent by 15th of every succeeding month till the disposal of the petition. However, he gave the direction that the rent so deposited in Court shall not be paid to anyone till final orders. So, apparently he has made the order under Section 15(4) of the said Act which reads as follows:

(3.) A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that an order therein can be made only if there is no dispute regarding a person being a tenant in the premises but there is dispute with regard to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable. In case prima facie the court comes to the conclusion that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties then obviously an interim order under Section 15(2) in an eviction petition where there is no ground of non-payment of rent or under Section 15(1) where the ground of non-payment of rent has been taken, can be passed. The Tribunal has not passed the interim order under Section 15(2). On the face of it, he was not legally right in passing any order under Section 15(4) of the said Act in view of the facts of the present case as appellant denied his status as tenant. The Tribunal has, no doubt, given a finding that prima facie there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties on the basis of documents filed in the case. The facts as pleaded by the parties, in brief, were that the appellant is the owner of the property in question. She borrowed some amount from Jodha Ram, respondent's father, in 1972 vide registered mortgage deed. Admittedly the appellant continued to be in possession of the premises in question. Later on, it is the case of the respondent that an agreement to sell, an irrevocable power of attorney and a rent note were executed by the appellant on February 7, 1975 and on the basis of the said documents it was pleaded that the appellant became tenant in the premises in question. It is not out of place to mention that on the basis of same very documents a petition on the ground of non-payment of rent was brought against the appellant but as the appellant had pleaded that all those documents i.e. agreement to sell, rent note etc., have not been executed by her, the Additional Rent Controller trying the eviction case on the ground of nonpayment of rent deferred the question of passing any order under Section 15(1) till the evidence is led. No appeal was filed by the respondent against that particular order.