J.C. SHAH, J.

(1) MAN Mohan Chawla was since before 1958 a tenant of certain premises in Delhi belonging to J. S. Sethi. The contractual rent of the premises was Rs. 160.00 per month. Sethi filed a petition under Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for an order in ejectment against Chawla on the plea that the latter had committed default in paying rent for seven months consecutively pursuent to a direction of the Rent Controller, Chawla deposited the rent claimed, and the amount deposited was paid over to Sethi and the proceeding was disposed of.

(2) CHAWLA again committed default for three consecutive months, and Sethi commenced another proceeding under Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for an order in ejectment. Chawla denied the claim that he had committed default in payment of rent. He pleaded that he had on 19/03/1963 sent to Sethi Rs. 320.00 by a postal money order which Sethi had refused to accept. Sethi denied that a money order sent by Chawla was brought to him by the postal peon. Chawla also pleaded that the contractual rent was excessive and that the rent of the premises let to him could not exceed Rs. 50.00 per month and prayed that standard rent may be fixed by the Controller. The Controller rejected that contention of Chawla and .passed an order in ejectment. The order of ejectment passed by the Controller was confirmed in appeal by the Rent Control tribunal, and a second appeal to the High court was also unsuccessful. Chawla has appealed to this court with special leave.

(3) IN support of the appeal counsel for Chawla contended : (i) that the Controller was bound to determine the standard rent of the premises in the proceeding instituted by Sethi and since the Controller failed to do so the order in ejectment was illegel : (ii) the court below were in error in holding that Chawla could not obtain the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ; (iii) that the legal presumption arising from the despatch of a postal money order for Rs. 320.00 addressed to Sethi had been ignored by all the courts; and (iv) that Chawla had made a deposit of rent for three months and if that deposit be taken into account Chawla was not in arrears for three consecutive months at the date of the initiation of the proceeding.

(4) NOT much need be said about contentions (iii)and(iv). The forth plea was not raised before the Rent Controller and the Rent Control tribunal ; it was sought to be urged for the first time before the High court and the High court declined to entertain that plea. We have not permitted counsel to raise that plea, for its determination depends upon proof of facts which were never proved.

(5) ALL the courts have held that Chawla had failed to prove his case that a postal money order for Rs. 320.00 sent by Chawla was duly addressed to Sethi and that Sethi refused to accept the postal money order when it was tendered to him. The only evidence in support of that case was a postal receipt for despatch of a money order for Rs. 320.00 to Sethi. It did not bear the residential address of Sethi. Sethi deposed that no one had tendered to him the postal money order. His testimony has been believed. The third contention must therefore fail.

(6) WE may now turn to the first and the second contentions. It is necessary to bear in mind that under the Delhi Rent Act, a proceeding for recovery of rent does not lie before the Controller ; it lies in the civil court. The Controller is authorised to try a proceeding for ejectment or for determination or for determination of standard rent, or for determination of fair rent in respect of a hotel and lodging house.

(7) THE relevant provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 which have a bearing on the two contentions remaining to be determined may first be noticed.

(8) SECTION 2(k) defines "standard rent" as meaning in relation to any premises, "the standard rent referred to in Section 6