( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of S. A. O. 116/82 and cross-objections CM 2147/82.

( 2 ) THE appellant Ram Saran was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 33. 00 in the disputed shop. He was inducted by Lallu Rain father of Misri Lal respondent. The father gifted the property in favour of the respondent and the appellant began to pay rent to him in June, 1972, but stopped doing so with effect from 1-10-1975. Misri Lal served anotice on Ram Saran on 26-3-1979 of demand for arrears oi rent and termination of tenancy with effect from 30-4-1979, but with no result. He then filed the present eviction application under cl. (a)of Sec. 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (the Act ).

( 3 ) THE tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Misri Lal. He said that he was inducted as tenant by Misri Lal s brother Ganga Ram and has been paying rent to Ganga Ram and the applicant never notified to him that he was the owner. Upon receipt of the notice he tendered rent first to Ganga Ran, then to Misri Lal, but both refused to accept. Ultimately, he deposited the same under Sec. 27 of the Act for the period from 1-9-1976 to 30-4-1979. He claimed that he has complied with the notice within two months of the service of the notice and, therefore, no cause of action was available against him.

( 4 ) THE landlord made an application under Sec. 15 (1) of the Act. The learned Controller on 10-10-1979 made an order directing the tenant to pay or deposit the arrears of rent with effect from July, 1976 within one month and regularly pay future rent. The learned Controller did not permit adjustment of the aforesaid deposits made in the Court. An appeal against this order was filed and the order of the Controller was modified. Considering the deposits made by him, the tenant was directed to deposit the arrears from 1-5-1979 because the tenant could not be made to pay twice over. That order also does not seem to have been complied with.

( 5 ) IN the trial of the eviction application, the learned Controller found that the fact of gift by the father in favour of Misri Lal was not specifically denied. The applicant had informed the tenant on 6-7-1972 of the gift. It was also proved that the tenant had been paying rent to Misri Lal up to September, 1975 but ceased to do so thereafter. The learned Controller held that the notice of demand was given by Misri Lal and hence tender or payment of the rent should have been made to him. Any payment or tender to Ganga Ram was not compliance of notice. Moreover, the respondent tenant failed to produce any rent receipt purporting to show that he had made payments even to Ganga Ram. In the application made by the respondent under Section 27, Misri Lal and Ganga Ram both had been impleaded. The amount deposited under Section 27 of the Act cannot be adjusted because it was not paid nor tendered to Misri Lal. The learned Controller, therefore, rejected the contention that the tenant had tendered or paid rent within two months of the receipt of notice. But since the order of 10-10-1979 was only an interim order, the learned Controller passed another order under Section 15 (1) of the Act directing that rent should be paid from March, 1976 and if the tenant complied with this fresh Order, then he will get the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act. This order of the Controller is dated 31-7-1980.

( 6 ) THE tenant appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, the tenant died in November, 1980. His legal representatives were substituted. The learned Tribunal held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between Misri Lal and Ram Saran. It upheld the order of the trial court that no adjustment of rent deposited can be allowed. The learned Tribunal held that the contractual tenancy was terminated by valid notice with effect from 30-4-1979. The tenant, therefore, became a statutory tenant after that date. Relying upon Gian Devi Anand v. Jiwan Kumar and others, 18 (1980) D. L. T