KAMLA DEVI Vs. SADHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was filed by the appellant-landlady against the respondent on the ground that the respondent had not paid the arrears of rent in spite of notice of demand dated 13.12.1977 demanding that the rent had not been paid from 1st January, 1976 at the rate of Rs. 9.00 per month. The appellant also filed an eviciton petition earlier against the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent. Same was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the said dismissal by the Additional Rent Controller, an appeal was filed by the appellant against the said order dated 30.10.1975 before the Rent Control Tribunal, who allowed the appeal and set aside the finding of the Additional Rent Controller and upheld the ground of non-payment of rent. The Rent Control Tribunal held that as the respondent has complied with the order under Section 15 (1) passed in the proceedings in the trial Court, he was allowed the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act.

(2.) In the second eviction petition which is the subject matter of present appeal, it was contended by the appellant that a second default has been committed in the payment of rent and as the respondent had already enjoyed the benefit of Section 14 (2), the petition be allowed. The Additional Rent Controller held that as the respondent had enjoyed the benefit of Section 14 (2) it was a case of second default and passed an eviction order under Section 14(1)(a) and ordered eviction of the respondent.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-tenant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal pleading that as the order of the Rent Control Tribunal granting benefit of Section 14(2) was dated November 18, 1978 and the notice of demand was dated December 18, 1977 i.e., prior in time before a second default was committed in the earlier proceedings, benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act must be accorded to the tenant. Learned Rent Control Tribunal held that the benefit of Section 14 (2) was accorded to the tenant on November 18, 1978 and it was on that date that the respondent was held to be not entitled to suffer an order of eviction in the earlier proceedings on the ground of non-payment of rent. Prior to the said date, the tenant was not held by any court to be a defaulter in the sense that thereafter in spite of valid notice of demand he has failed to pay or tender the rent. Therefore, the Rent Control Tribunal held that in 1977 the respondent at best could have committed again a default and held that no second default was committed because no notice of demand was given after benefit of Section 14 (2) was given. On the basis of the order of Rent Control Tribunal, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that rent was deposited on 26.12.1978, after the first appeal was allowed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 18.11.1978. He contended that Rent Control Tribunal rightly held that benefit of Section 14 (2) was not taken by the respondent and, therefore, there was no second default committed by the respondent. Mr. Anil Kumar has further contended that when the first eviction petition was dismissed on 30.10.1975, the respondent filed an application dated 10.2.1976, to deposit the rent, which was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller. The appeal from the first eviction petition preferred by the appellant-landlady was allowed on 18.11.1978 and the arrears of rent were deposited in Court on 26.12.1978. Therefore, no default has been committed. The benefit of Section 14 (2) has not been taken by the respondent and the notice of demand dated 30.11.1977 is prior to the date of the first appeal, cannot result into a second default. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent has cited Shri Munshi Lal Vs. Thakur Prem Chand 1970 RCJ 496.