SANT LAL Vs. HARISH CHANDER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord-petitioner has come up in revision against the order of the Appellant Authority dated September 21, 1976, whereby he dismissed his appeal and maintained the order of the Rent Controller dated March 30, 1976.

(2.) The Landlord petitioner has filed application for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. In the application rent claimed is at the rate of Rs 100/- per month. Thus according to him, the arrears of rent from January 1, 1973 to January 10, 1976, comes to Rs. 3,887/-. On the first date of hearing, that is, March 17, 1976, the tenant-respondent contended that the rent according to him is Rs. 10.94 per month and, according to his calculations, he tendered a sum of Rs. 741.28 on that date and the case was adjourned for March 26, 1976, for further proceedings. On March 19, 1976, the tenant made application that the Court has not assessed the interest amount which according to him were the areas of rent. This application was contested by the landlord. After hearing the parties, the Rent Controller passed the impugned order on March 30, 1976. It was observed therein by the Rent Controller that it was incumbent upon the Court to calculate the interest and as the tenant had filed application to assess the interest within time, therefore, it was essential to assess up to date interest. Upto date interest was assessed at Rs. 83/- on the total amount of Rs. 647/84. The landlord feeling aggrieved against this order filed appeal before the appellate Authority. After hearing arguments on both the sides, the order of the Rent Controller was maintained though it was also observed that the said order passed by the Rent Controller is interlocutory order against which no appeal could be filed but at the same time it was held that the said order is very much legal and is not liable to be set side.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appeal before the appellate Authority against the order of the Rent Controller was competent and the appellate authority has wrongly held that no appeal was maintainable. However, in the present case, this matter need not be gone into because on the merits also, the order of the Rent Controller has been maintained by the appellate Authority.