T.P.S.CHAWLA
JAGAT TARAN BERRY – Appellant
Versus
SARDAR SANT SINGH – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS second appeal under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 raises an intricate question as to the validity of a notice to quit. An order for recovery of possession has been made by the Additional Rent Controller and confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. The notice to quit was of 15 days. The tenant contends that as the lease was for manufacturing purposes the notice ought to have been of six months. There was no written lease deed executed by the parties; at least, none has been brought on record.
( 2 ). The only other fact that need be mentioned is that for the few months that rent was paid, the payments were monthly. This is proved by the counterfoil of a receipt signed by the tenant. It shows that Rs. 400 was paid as rent for November, 1966. Admittedly, nothing was paid thereafter. The order for recovery of possession was sought and obtained on the ground that arrears of rent had not been paid since 1st December, 1966. In the course of the proceedings before the Additional Rent Controller, the defence of the tenant was struck out as he did not deposit the arrears of rent pursuant to an order under section 15 (1) of the Act. That is why no argument has
REFERRED TO : Sati Prasanaa Mukherjee and others v. Md. Fazal
Krishna Das Nandy v. Bidhau Chandra Roy
Balwant Singh and others v. L. Murari Lal
Steuart and Co. Ltd. v. C. Mackertich
Bastacolla Colliery Co. Ltd. v. Bandhu Beldar and another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.