PRITAM SINGH SAFEER

( 1 ) THIS judgement will diapose of the reference made in S. A. O. No. 213 of 1969 as well as S. A. O. No. 231 of 1974.

( 2 ) S. A. O. No. 213 of 1969 was taken up by B. C. Misra, J. on 26th of March, 1975 and he made a reference in terms of the order passed on that date;. S. A-O- No. 231 of 1974 was also taken up by him on the same date and in accordance with the order he passed it was observed that a reference had been made in the earlier case and the appeals would be heard on merits after the reference has been answered.

( 3 ) WE need ;not notice the facts with which the two appeals are concerned, because we are to answer the reference only.

( 4 ) A careful perusal of the detailed order of reference made in S. A. O. No. 213 of 1969 leads to the conclusion that the learned Judge was faced with the question as to what would be the true interpretation of section 14 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The- concerned provisions may be noticed at once. Section 14 (2) in the Act is:-

"14. Protection of Tenants against eviction.- (1) * * * *

(2) No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1), if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by section 15 :

PROVIDED that no tenant shall be entitled to the benefit under this sub-section if, having obtained such benefit once in respect of any premises, he again makes a default in the payment of rent of those premises for three consecutive months. "

SUB-SECTIONS (1) and (7) of section 15 read: -.

"15. When a tenant can get the benefit of, protection against eviction.-- (1) In every proceeding for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground, specified in Clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, the Controller shall, after giving the partics an oppor- tunity of being heard, make an "order directing the tenant to Pay to the landlord or deposit with the Controller within one month of the date of the order, an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid for the period for which the arrears of rent were legally recoverable from the tenant including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in Which payment or deposit is made and to continue to pay or deposit, month by month, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. . " * * * *

" (7) If a tenant fails to make payment or deposit as required by this section, the Controller may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and proceed with the hearing of the application. "

( 5 ) ALTHOUGH detailed facts have not been noticed, it would be expedient to mention that S. A. O. 213 of 1969 was an appeal by a tenant which was concerned with the institution of a petition for eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The landlord had instituted a petition for eviction on 17th of November, 1965 on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The ground pleaded was covered by section 14 (l) (a) of the Act. A significant plea raised, however, was that the tenant had taken the benefit of section 14 (2) in an earlier proceeding and, therefore, was not entitled to it any more. A certified copy of the earlier petition for eviction was proved on the record. The earlier petition for eviction on the ground of con-payment of rent had been filed on 13th August, 1964. The tenant contested the same by filing a written statement. In the course of the proceedings on the 28th of November, 1964, the Additional Rent Controller passed the order Exhibit A. 3 under sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Act. On 30th December, 1964, he passed the order : "dismissed. Announced. " Before the passing of that order, the landlord had made a statement to the effect that he wanted to withdraw the petition because the tenant had deposited the rent till 30th November, 1964, which, it was prayed, be ordered to be paid to him.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document