RADHEY LAL Vs. HEM CHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to appreciate the contention which has been raised by Mr. Narula, the learned Counsel for the -Petitioner -tenant, it is essential to state the facts leading up to the order which is sought to be challenged in this Court.

(2.) RADHE Lal is a tenant of the premises consisting of a godown which had been rented by him originally at the rate of Rs. 75/ - per mensem from one Suresh Chand, predecessor -in interest of the present Respondents. The rent was raised subsequently to Rs. 112/ - somewhere in 1955. The suit property was purchased by the Respondents Hem Chand and Rani Urmila on 11th of February, 1956, and the Petitioner in due course attorned to the new owners the rent being maintained at Rs. 112/ - per mensem. The rent was accepted upto 11th of August, 1956. A suit for ejectment was brought by the Respondents on 5th of February, 1959 on grounds of re construction and non -payment of rent. It may be mentioned that in the suit as originally framed, rent was claimed from 11th of February, 1956 but later on, it was admitted that it had been paid upto 11th of August, 1956. Before the first hearing, the rent and costs amounting in all to Rs. 3,370/ - were paid on 31st of March, 1959. Further payment was duly made on 28th of April, 1959.

(3.) IT may at this stage be pointed out that Sub -section (5} of Section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Kent Control Act, 1952 by which the parties are concededly governed, is to this effect: -