PARVIN GOGIA Vs. DAYAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller striking out the defence under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Rent Control Tribunal. That appeal was also dismissed holding that the default committed by the petitioner was wilful and contumacious.

(2.) Mr. Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the petitioner has paid the rent from February 1992 to February, 1994, during the lifetime of the previous owner namely Shri R.C. Rajput, which was subsequently adjusted by his widow Smt. Madhu Rajput, the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal and that of Additional Rent Controller were without jurisdiction. He has further contended that he is willing to pay if there was any default even today in Court and this Court has got ample power to condone the delay in making payment of the rent, In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Ram Murty Vs. Bhola Nath & Anr. AIR 1984 SC 1392. Mr. Bhargava has also contended that the amount stood paid even if the rent was not paid and the Additional Rent Controller ought to have given him an opportunity to make good the deficiency in payment of arrears rent in view of Ms. Santosh Mehta Vs. Om Prakash & Ors. 1980 (2) RCR 516. Mr. Bhargava has contended that as a matter of fact no default was committed by the petitioner in payment of arrears of rent.

(3.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. An order under Section 15(1) of the petitioner to pay or deposit the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.9.1993 till last day of the previous month within one month of the date of order i.e. 1.11.1995 at the rate of Rs.200.00 per month and to continue to pay future rent month by month at the same rate was made by the Additional Rent Controller. Instead of complying with the said order, the petitioner filed an application taking the plea, which was hitherto neither taken by the petitioner in the written statement filed by the petitioner before the Additional Rent Controller nor was brought to the notice of the Court while an order under Section 15(1) was passed by the Additional Rent Controller that rent for the said period has been paid to Smt. Madhu Rajput. That application was decided on 23.11.1996. No appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order passed on 23.11.1996. Additional Rent Controller in his order dated 7.1.1997 which was the order striking out the defence of the petitioner under Section 15(7) held as follows :