R. N. AGGARWAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the heirs and legal representatives of a tenant against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated March 1, 1978, by which the order of the Additional Rent Controller passing an order of eviction was affirmed.

( 2 ) THIS appeal raises an interesting question of law. The relevant facts are these: the deceased Suraj Prakash was a tenant of the premises described as a shop situate in premises No. 115-A, Kamla Nagar at a monthly rent of Rs. 40. The landlord Prem Chand filed an application for the eviction of Suraj Prakash and Sham Sunder on two grounds (1) non-payment of arrears of rent and (2) misusers of the premises.

( 3 ) SURAJ Prakash in reply asserted that he alone is the tenant and Sham Sunder has got no interest or right in the tenanted premises. . The above plea of the tenant was upheld and it is no longer in controversy. The plea of the landlord as regards the non-payment of the rent was that the tenant was in arrears of rent since October 1968 and inspite of the notice of demand had not paid the arrears of rent. The reply of the tenant to the above plea was that there was no valid notice of demand and that he had paid Rs. 500 in advance to the landlord and the landlord has not given credit for the said amount. It was also pleaded by the tenant that there was no valid notice for terminating the tenancy.

( 4 ) ON December 3, 1970, the Rent Controller passed an order under section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) requiring the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 40 per month within one month and thereafter to continue to deposit the rent month to month by the 15th of every following month till the disposal of the petition. It is not disputed that the tenant had deposited the arrears of rent within the specified period.

( 5 ) ON December 24, 1971, the tenant Suraj Prakash died and an application was made for bringing on record his legal representatives. The application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but on appeal the application was allowed and the legal representatives (the appellants herein) were brought on record.

( 6 ) ON January 16, 1975, the Additional Rent Controller allowed the application and passed an order of eviction against the legal representatives on the ground that the legal representatives had defaulted in complying with the order under section 15 (1 ). The legal representatives took an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal but thenappeal was dismissed on March 1, 1978. The Tribunal took the view that the legal representatives were bound to comply with the order under section 15 (1) and since they had not complied with the said order the order of eviction passed against them is valid and they cannot claim benefit of section 14 (2) of the Act

( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that there was default on the part of the legal representatives in complying with the order under section 15 (1 ).

( 8 ) ON behalf of the appellants it is contended by Mr. Tiagi that after the death of the tenant the order under section 15 (1) lost its effect by force of law and the legal representatives were under no legal obligation to comply with the order under section 15 (1) and, therefore, no order of eviction could be passed against the legal representatives on the ground of default in compliance with the order under section 15 (1 ).

( 9 ) ON behalf of the landlord it is contended by the learned counsel Mr. Sharma that after the death of the tenant the legal representatives of the tenant represented the estate of the tenant and the legal representatives can put forward only such contentions as are appropriate to their representative character but not the contentions which were personal to the deceased tenant, and that the courts below having found that the tenancy of the deceased tenant had been validly terminated, no other defence was open to the legal representatives and, therefore, the landlord is entitled to the order of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document