AVADH BEHARI ROHTAGI, J.

( 1 ) PRITAM Lal, appellant, ^ a tenant of a house owned by the respondent landlady Shrimati Anand Kaur. Tlie agreed rate of rent was Rs. 15. 00 per month. The Lcnant did not pay rent from June 1, 1973 to May 31, 1974.

( 2 ) ON June 6, 1974, the landlady brought an eviction case ^i^. ^nsf the tenant. The sole ground on which the ejectment of the . . lant was sought was non-payment of rent. In the ejectment petit i it was said that the tenant had committeed default once in tl^ ^ast and as a result of which an application for his eviction was filed and the court made an order under s. 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act) directing him to deposit rent which he did. The default in the payment of rent from June 1973 to May 1974 was said to be a second default.

( 3 ) BEFORE the petition was filed by the landlady on December 14, 1973, she served a notice on the tenant. In the notice she wrote to the tenant as follows :

REGISTERED A. D. From Shrimati Anand Kaur E-130, Kalkaji Colony, New Delhi-19. Date the 14th December, 1973. Shri Prilam Lal, A-54, Double Storey. kalkaji. New Delhi-110019 Dear Sir. Please note that your contractual tenancy in respect of House No. A-54 (Double Storey) Kalkaji, New Delhi-19 had already been terminated whereafter you are a statutory tenant liable to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 15. 00 (Rupees fifteen per month) to me. That you have not paid the said damages after May 1973. In case you do not clear the arrears upto date within two months from the date of this notice, I shall be compelled to issue instructions to my legal adviser to file an application for your eviction, which please note. A copy of this notice has been retained for record. Yours faithfully (Anand Kaur)

( 4 ) IT is not dispute that the tenant received this notice. On receipt of the notice he went to his lawyer. His lawyer sent a reply on May 15. 1974. With the reply a cheque of Rs. 180. 00 was also sent to the landlady.

( 5 ) IT appears that before sending the cheque the tenant had remitted Rs. 135. 00 by money order sometimes in March 1974 on account of rent from June 1973 to February 1974. This money order was not accepted by the landlady. The tenant then sent another money order of Rs. 150. 00 on account of rent for the period from June 1973 to March 1974. This was done in April 1974. This was also returned. Thereafter with the reply a cheque of Rs. ISO/was sent. The landlady refused to accept the cheque. On her behalf her lawyer wrote to the tenant on May 30. 1974, that since the tenant did not clear the arrears of rent within two months of the notice dated December 14, 1973, he had made himself liable to eviction and the landlady was going to sue him in ejectment. As regards the cheque it was said that it was too late and the notice- period had expired and liability for eviction had already been incurred. The cheque was returned to the tenant. On June 6, 1974, ejectment proceedings were launched by the landlady, as I have said.

( 6 ) THE tenant filed his written statement. By way of preliminary objection he said that the eviction petition was not maintainable as the notice scrved by the landlady upon him was not a valid notice of demand as contemplated by s. 14 (l) (a) of the Act. On this ground it was submitted that the eviction petition was unmaintainable.

( 7 ) THE Additional Rent Controller decided the preliminary objection against the tenant. The tenant appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal also rejected the preliminary objection by order dated July 16 1975. The tenant now appeals to this court.

( 8 ) THE main question is: Is the notice dated December 14, 1973, a notice of demand as required by the provisions of s. 14 (1) of the Act? The Additional Controller as well as the Tribunal were of the view that it did not matter that the claim was couched in the language of damages for use and occupation as it was specifically said that the tenant was a statutory tenant. It wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document