R. N. Aggarwal, J.

( 1 ) BRIEFLY, the facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:

THE appellant had taken on rent the premises H-1. Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, at a rent of Rs. 4. 500. 00 per month on 5th October, 1978. The above lease was obtained under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

( 2 ) ON 4th October, 1980 the tenant filed an application for fixation of standard rent. During the pendency of the said application on 17th March, 1981 the landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. In the said application it is averred that the tenant had defaulted in paying the rent since November, 1979. According to the landlord except for a sum of Rs. 6000. 00 the tenant has not paid rent from 4th November, 1979.

( 3 ) ON 3rd July, 1981 the Rent Controller passed an order under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called t he Act ) directing the tenant to pay or deposit the arrears of rent from 5th November, 1979 till date within a period of one month. The order provided that the tenant can deduct the amount of Rs. 6000. 00 which had been paid by bank draft to the landlord. It may be mentioned that the arrears of rent amounted to about Rs. 80,000. 00.

( 4 ) AGAINST the aforesaid order the tenant filed an appeal From the judgment, it appears that the only contention urged before the Tribunal was that no eviction petition under Section 14 (l) (a) was competent as the premises were taken alter obtaining permission under Section 21 of the t. The Tribunal did not agree with the contention of the appellant and dismissep the appeal on 17th July, 1981.

( 5 ) AGAINST the aforesaid judgment the tenant lias come in second appeal. Mr. Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that before the Rent Controller there was a dispute regarding the amount of rent payable by the tenant and the Controller was bound to fix an interim rent under sub-section (3) of Section 15. Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act reads as under :-

"if, in any proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), there is any dispute as to amount of rent payable by the tenant,the Controller shall, within fifteen days of the date of the first hearing of the proceedings, fix an interim rent in relation to the premises to be paid for deposited in accordance with the provisions of sub-see. (1) or sub section (2), as the case may be, until the standerd rent in relation thereto is fixed having regard to the provisions of this Act, and the amount of arrears, if any, calculated on the basis of the standard rent shall be paid or deposited by the tenant within one month or the date on which the standard rent is fixed or such further time as the Controller may allow in this behalf".

( 6 ) MR. Sabharwal on behalf of the landlord contends that under sub-section (3), the Rent Controller is to fix interim rent only in case there is a dispute between the parties regarding the rate of rent, and that since in this case there is no dispute that the agreed rent was Rs. 4500. 00 per month, the Controller under Section 15 (1) had no option but to pass an order for depositing the arrears of rent calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid. The counsel also contended that in the application filed by the tenant for fixation of standard rent, the tenant had filed an application under section 10 for fixation of interim rent but the application was rejected by the Additional Rent Controller Shri Jindal on 7th August 1961. Mr. Sabharwal, in support of his contention, referred to M. M. Chawla v. J. S. Sethi, 1969 (Vol. 1) Rent Control Reporter Page 861, Smt. Bhonri Devi v. Gopi Ram, 1971, All India Rent Control Journal 248 and Mohan C Vaniuni v. Shri Sant Dass, 1971 (3) Rent Control Reporter 914.

( 7 ) IN M. M. Chawla (supra) the Supreme Court held that if in a proceeding under Section 14 (l) (a) the tenant raises by way of defence a contention that the standard rent be determined the Controll

Click Here to Read the rest of this document