Yogeshwar Dayal,j.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 27th November, 1980 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, passing an order under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the act ).

( 2 ) THE Tribunal by the impugned order set aside an order dated 19th July, 1980 whereby the Additional Rent Controller, had deferred passing an order under Section 15 (1) of the Act.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal found that there is a relationship of Iandlord and tenant between the parties. The Tribunal also found that in view of two agreements dated 3rd September, 1975 and 29th July, 1976 prima facie there is no deprivation of any portion of the premises let out by the landlord to the tenant. The Tribunal also found that prima facie the rate of rent is Rs. 2,000/ per month and a sum of Rs. 16,000. 00 are in arrears towards rent until June, 1978, and thereafter the petitioner-tenant is in arrears of rent @ Rs. 2000. 00 per month and, therefore, the Tribunal directed the same to be deposited within one month and subsequent rent shall be paid or deposited month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month.

( 4 ) MR. I. D. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that it was not a lit case for passing order under Section 15 (1) of the Act when the arrears were being disputed and the Additional Rent Controller was correct in deferring the order under Section 15 (1) of the Act.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant also submitted that there is deprivation of portion of the premises let out to him. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that he is entitled to suspension of rent since from May 1978 the landlord disconnected electric supply and thus the order of the Tribunal should be set aside. In this connection the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of Ramaswami,j. in the matter of B. Ahmed Maracair vs. Muthuvalliappa Chettiar : A. I R. 1961 Madras 28. "i he learned counsel also disputed that there were no arrears of rent when the petition for eviction was filed.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal relied upon an admitted agreement dated 19th November, 1977 which shows that till November, 1977 there was an arrears of Rs. 20,000. 00 towards rent and that agreement of 19th November, 1977 shows a payment of Rs. 5. 000. 00 only. The agreement also shows that the alance of Rs 15,000. 00 hadtobepaidin three instalments after every fortnight. The Tribunal also found that though the rent of subsequent period after the agreement was paid except that for May, 1978 instead of Rs. 2,000. 00 per month the payment was made only @ Rs. 1,000. 00 per month and after considering the entire material on record it came to the conclusion that prima facie the tenant is in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 16,ooc. 00 uptil June, 1978. This finding has been given after considering the entire material on record and I do not find any infirmity in this finding which can be interfered with under Section 39 of the Act.

( 7 ) COMING to the question whether the tenant was deprived of any portion of the premises the learned Tribunal also relied upon two agreements dated 3rd September, 1975 and 29th July, 1976 which described the premises as consisting of basement and mezzanine coupled with an affidavit filed by the tenant before certain authorities dated 27th January, 1978 which also described the premises let out as basement and mezzanine. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no case of deprivation of any portion of the premises let out to the tenant.

( 8 ) MR. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant, further submitted that he is entitled to total suspension of the rent since the landlord disconnected electric supply from May 1978. This point was not urged belore the Tribunal. However, before me learned counsel relied upon the decision, as stated earlier, of Ramaswami, J. Maracair vs. Muthuvalliappa Chettiar (supra ). It will be noticed that decision of Ramaswami, J. is based on the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document