HIRA LAL Vs. PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in the second appeal assail the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 26.11.1984, by which he dismissed the appellants' petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the D.R.C. Act, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", while issuing notice to the D.D.A. under Section 14 (11) of the Act on the ground under Section 14 (1) (k) of the Act.

(2.) The Additional Rent Controller held that by notice of demand, appellants demanded rent at an exaggerated rate of Rs.142.00 per month, which vitiated the notice itself and hence declined to grant any relief on the ground of non-payment of rent. The appellants assailed the order dated 26.11.1984, before the Rent Control Tribunal. The learned Rent Control Tribunal after carefully analysing the evidence held that the rent was Rs.42.00 per month and not Rs.142.00 , as claimed by the appellants in the notice of demand. The learned Rent Control Tribunal also held that demand of excessive amount of notice did not render it invalid and the respondent/tenant was bound to tender the amount recoverable within two months. In the result the Rent Control Tribunal set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller, dismissing the eviction petition under Clause (a) of Section 14 (1) of the Act and passed an order under Section 15 (1) of the Act. This being a case of first default, the Rent Control Tribunal directed the deposit of arrears of rent @ Rs.42.00 per month and upon the rent being so deposited, granted the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act.

(3.) In the present appeal, the appellants are assailing the order directing payment @ Rs.42.00 per month. The case of the appellants in brief is that it purchased the property in the year 1976, from the previous landlord. He commenced re-construction and renovations of the building in January 1979 and completed the same in December 1979. The respondent was tenant @ Rs.42.00 per month in occupation of a shop under the previous landlord. The appellants claim after the renovations and re-construction, parties negotiated and mutually agreed for the increase of rent from Rs.42.00 to Rs.142.00 per month. It is contended that the respondent in fact paid the rent for the months of December 1980 and January 1981 at the rate of Rs.142.00 per month. The appellants claim to have sent a notice of demand dated 14.5.1981, which was duly replied to by the respondent vide his reply dated 21.5.1981. The appellants had produced on record two counter foils of receipts, Ex.A-7 and Ex.A-8, purporting to be the counter foils of receipts of rent for the months of December 1980 and January 1981, purportedly paid by the respondent. The appellants claim that the said counter foils of receipts were duly signed by the respondent and were evidence of the rent having been last paid @ Rs.142.00 per month.