The defence against eviction which is to be struck out under Section 15 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 includes all kinds of defences which a tenant could take against eviction, including the defence that no valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had been issued.

RAJINDAR SACHAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS judgment of mine will dispose of two appeals under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) i. e. Appeal No. S. A. O. 107 of 1970 filed by the tenant and S. A. O. No. 149 of 1970 filed by the landlord.

( 2 ) ON 11-3-1969 the landlord filed an application against the tenant for eviction from the premises in dispute on the allegation that the rent had not been paid and was due since 1-5-1966. It was also pleaded that the notice of demand dated 1-1-1967 had been given and in spite of this the rent had not been paid. It was also pleaded that the notice had been served on the tenant. On 12-5-1969 the Rent Controller passed an order under Section 15 (1) of the Act directing the tenant to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs. 144. 59 per mensern with effect from 1-5-1966 within one month from the date of order. On 16th July, 1969, an application was moved under Section 15 (7) of the Act by the landlord for striking out the defence of the tenant on the ground that he had not complied with the order passed under Section" 15 (1) of the Act dated 12-5-1969. The tenant contested the application- His case was that he had applied for permission to deposit the amount on or about 9-6-1969 and that permission was granted to him on 14th July, 1969 and though necessary challans were obtained from the court on 15th July. 1969, there was some defect which had to be corrected and after getting the challans on ,17-7-1969 an amount of Rs. 5,639. 00 was deposited in the State Bank of India on 18th July. 1969. The Rent Controller. however, by his order dated 2-8-1969 found that no proof was given by the tenant to show that any such amount had been deposited as alleged. It was specifically noted by the Additional Rent Controller that he had obtained a report from the Naib Nazar who had also made a report that no amount has been received from the Treasury. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that the tenant had not complied with the order passed under Section 16 (1) of the Act. He thereupon struck out the defence and proceeded straightaway to pass an order of ejectment against the tenant and passed an order on the same date for the recovery of possession of the premises against the tenant.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED against this order, the tenant filed an appeal. No. 6- of 1969 against the order dated 2-8-1969 betore the Rent Control Tribunal. Similarly on 14th August. 1969, the tenant filed another appeal No. 659 of 1969 against the order dated 12th May, 1969 passed under Section 15 (1) of the Act by Shri S. R. Goel Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. Appeal No. 659 of 1969 was obviously barred by time. Effort was made to satisfy the Rent Control Tribunal that the tenant had proper excuse not to file an appeal within the time- The Rent Control Tribunal, however, was not so satisfied and by its order of 8th June. 1970 held that the appeal hearing No. 659 of 1969 was barred by time and, therefore, dismissed it. No. appeal has been filed by the tenant against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appeal bearing No. 659 of 1969. The result is that the order of the Rent Controller dated 12th May, 1969 passed under Section 15 (1) of the Act by which the tenant was directed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 144. 59 per mensem within one month has become final.

( 4 ) MR. Bedi purported to re-open the said finding by contending that the condition precedent tor the passing of the order under Section 15 (1) of the Act was the issuing of notice as provided by proviso (a) to Section 14 of the Act and as according to him no such notice had been issued the order under Section 15 (1) of the Act was a nullity and could be ignored. The Rent Control Tribunal has even on merits found that this part of the argument had no validity and that notice was in fact served as required by the Act. That apart it is not contended that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 15 (1) of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document