DIGAMBAR PRASAD Vs. S L DHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been referred to Full Bench in pursuance of the order of Dua, C.J. (as he then was) and Rangarajan. J. in the following circumstances.

(2.) Digambar Prasad, proprietor of Musaddi Mal Brothers, is occupying the shop in dispute bearing Municipal No. 1791. situate in Dariba Kalan, Delhi, as a tenant of Shrimati Devi Jain and Shrimati Gun Wanti Devi Jain respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner is carrying on jeweller's business in the shop. On October 28, 1964 respondents 2 and 3 filed a petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act for the eviction of the petitioner from the shop on the ground that for the period till September 30. 1964, Rs. 1,180 were due from the petitioner on account of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 46.00 per mensern and that he had refused to pay the said amount in spite of a registered notice. The petitioner was also alleged to have sublet a portion of the shop without the consent of respondents 2 and 3.

(3.) The application of the respondents was resisted by the petitioner. He denied the allegation that arrears of rent were due from him and that he had sublet any part of the shop. The petitioner also prayed for fixation of the standard rent. On May 9, 1965 the Additional Controller passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and directed the petitioner to pay or deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 46.00 permensern within one month from the date of the order and to continue paying or depositing the future rent month by month at the same rate, during the pendency of the eviction proceedings. The petitioner went up in appeal against that order but his appeal was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal as per order dated January 31, 1966. The petitioner failed to comply with the order made under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by paying or depositing the arrears within the prescribed period. The defence of the petitioner was thereupon struck off by the Additional Controller under Section 15(7) of the above Act on March 30, 1966. The Additional Controller thereafter went into the question of the liability of the petitioner to be evicted and the standard rent of the shop in dispute. As per order dated November 26, 1966 the Additional Controller held that respondents 2 and 3 had failed to prove that the petitioner had sublet any part of the shop. The petitioner, was however, held to be liable to be evicted as he had admittedly not made any payment or deposited the arrears of rent in compliance with the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, The standard rent of the shop was fixed to be Rs. 20.00 per mensem with effect from the date of application, i.e.. October 28, 1964.