Rent Control authorities have the jurisdiction to determine the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship if denied, as a simple denial cannot oust their jurisdiction. Orders striking out a tenant's defense for non-payment of rent become final if not challenged via a second appeal.

Judgment

SINHA, C.J.I.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the Punjab High Court summarily dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, by his order dated May 31, 1962, from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated March 7, 1962, confirming that of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dated July 27, 1961, whereby he had directed the appellant to be evicted from the premises in question.

It appears that the respondents are admittedly the landlords of the premises, No. 24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The appellant claims to have been in occupation of the premises since prior to 1950, at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. In 1955, the respondent had instituted a suit for the eviction of the All India Postal & R.M.S. Union, and the appellant was also impleaded as a party to the suit. The respondents, in 1958, made an application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that they had come to know that the last owner, the father of the first respondent, had let the building to the appellant for his residential purposes and that the case should proceed against him only. But the Subordinate Judge, before whom the suit was pending, did not permit the amendment of the plaint but granted permission to withdraw from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh one, by his order dated May 8, 1959. Thereafter, on February 25, 1960, the respondents made an application before the Rent Controller, Delhi, for the eviction of the appellant alone, without impleading the Union aforesaid as a party. The contention of the appellant was that the premises had been let out by the father of the first plaintiff-respondent to the All India Postal & R.M.S. Union for office-cum-residential purposes and the tenancy of the Union had never been terminated. The appellant also alleged that he was not a tenant and, therefore, the application for his eviction was not maintainable. The petition for eviction was founded on the allegation that the appellant as tenant had made persistent default in the payment of rent and, secondly, that the premises were bonafide required by the respondents for their own residence, as the first respondent was about to leave the employment of a certain hospital which had provided him with residential accommodation. That is to say, the petition for eviction was brought under s. 14(l)(a) & (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (LIX of 1958)- which will be referred to in the course of the judgment as the Act. The appellant besides denying his tenancy and asserting the tenancy of the Union aforesaid stated that the respondents had already got suitable accommodation and that their requirement of the premises in question was not bonafide; the notice of demand for payment of rent served on the appellant was neither valid nor proper in law . inasmuch as he was not the tenant in respect of the premises, and that the notice of demand should have been served on the Union. The appellant asserted that he was only a licensee of the Union and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondents. On April 2, 1960, the Additional Rent Controller passed an order directing the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent from August 1, 1958, up-to-date, at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month, and future monthly rent, month by month, by the 15th of every following month. The respondents made an application on May 16, 1961. under s. 15(7) of the Act for striking out his defence against eviction on the ground that the tenant had failed to make the payment or deposit, as directed by the order dated April 2, 1960, aforesaid. The appellant denied that he had made any default in the regular payment of rent, but also asserted that if there was any such default it was not intentional and was the result of a miscalculation. By his order dated July 26, 1961, the Additional Rent Controller ordered the defence of the appellant to be struck out. An appeal against the order striking out