HARDAYAL Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgments dated 6th October, 1988 and 16th November, 1988 respectively passed by Shri Rakesh Kapoor, Additional Rent Controller and Shri M.A.Khan, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The brief facts of the case are that a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was filed by the respondents alleging that the appellant was a tenant in the tenanted premises at a monthly rent of Rs.120.00 vide rent agreement dated 1st October, 1982. It was further alleged that the appellant had neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st February, 1983 despite service of demand notice dated 28th January, 1984. The respondents,therefore, prayed that a decree of eviction be passed against the appellant in respect of the demised premises. The petition was contested on behalf of the appellant. In the written statement filed by him he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties though it was admitted that he was a tenant in the disputed property but claimed that his landlord was one Laxmi Narain who was father of the respondents. He also claimed that the premises were commercial and were let out in the year 1970. It was denied that he was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st February, 1983 or that he was liable to pay any rent to the respondents. He was a tenant in the tenanted property at a monthly rent of Rs.60.00 besides Rs.3.00 and Rs.2.00 towards electricity and water charges and he claimed that he had been running his business under the name and style of `M/s Azad Cycle Works' and the rent was being paid by him in the name of M/s Azad Cycle Works at a monthly rent of Rs.60.00 which was subsequently increased to Rs.120.00 per month. The appellant also claimed that the rent stood paid upto 31st January, 1984 but no rent receipts were issued to him and he had also deposited rent for the period 1st February, 1983 to 31st January 1985 in the Court of Shri Prem Kumar Additional Rent Controller in favour of Laxmi Narain Popli. Therefore, it was contended that he was not liable to pay rent at the rate of more than Rs.60.00 per month. Therefore the excess rent which had been recovered was liable to be refunded and adjusted. The appellant claimed that the notice dated 16th January, 1985 was complied with by him by deposit of rent under Section 27 of the Act in the Court after the respondent had refused the personal tender. The matter went to trial and the statements of witnesses and documents as relied upon by both the parties were placed on record. The Additional Rent Controller examined the pleas of the appellant as well as the documents placed on record and arrived at the following conclusion:-

(2.) The plea that the rent could not be raised in accordance with law from Rs.60.00 to Rs.120.00 per month was sought to be justified on the basis of the judgments as reported in Niranjan Singh S.Inder Singh Vs. Murti Shri Bhagwan Ram AIR 1956 Punj 95 and M/s Allied Engineers Vs. Smt.Harbaksh Gill 1985 (1) R.C.J. 147. Reliance is specifically placed on these judgments to reiterate the proposition that in view of the prohibition contained in Section 4 of the Act, the respondent landlord is not entitled to enhance the rent under the lease deed. Paragraph 8 of the later judgment reads as follows:-

(3.) The statement of the appellant was recorded. The operative portion of the same may be referred to as follows:- "I do not maintain any account books of my business under the name and style of M/s. Azad Cycle Works. I did not enter about the payment of Rs.60.00 on account of rent in any copy. I cannot tell the day, date and month when I have increased the rent from Rs.60.00 to Rs.120.00 per month. However, it was increased in the year 1972. Nothing was reduced in writing with the landlady. However, I was entering Rs.120.00 on account of rent in my own diary. I have not brought that diary containing the rent as Rs.120.00 per month. Volunteered- I have filed that diary in the other court pending proceedings in different court. At no time, I got issued any legal notice for demanding the rent-receipt with regard to the rent paid by me either at the rate of Rs.60.00 or thereafter at the rate of Rs.120.00 to Shri Laxmi Narain, Shri Raj Kumar or to Smt.Bhagwan Devi." The reading of the above will indicate that the appellant on his own raised the rent from Rs.60.00 to Rs.120.00 per month. The Additional Rent Controller as a consequence held that the agreed rent was Rs.120.00 per month which is supported from the reading of counter foils of the rent receipts that have been placed on record and even admitted by the appellant. In this view of the matter the law as stated in the abovesaid judgments is of no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The finding has been affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal and no fault can be found with the same.