The court emphasized the power of the controller to condone the delay in depositing the rent under Section 15(1) in certain circumstances beyond the tenant's control.

V.K. Shali, J.

1. These are two petitions filed by two separate petitioners who are brothers in respect two separate shops situated in property No. D-19/8, Main Road, Vijay Colony, 3rd Pushta, Usman Pur. The landlords of these two shops are different but the question involved is common. The present petitions have been filed on account of the order passed by Learned Additional Rent Controller on 3rd June, 2000 denying the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Rent Control Act. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred to the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal which was also rejected by Shri R.L. Chugh, the then Additional Rent Control Tribunal on 3rd July, 2000, resulting in filing of the two separate petitions.

2. Briefly stated the facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioners are the tenants in respect of the two shops. An eviction petition was filed by the respondent, Gandharv Singh in respect of both these shops against Shri Rakesh Kumar and Shri Rajesh Kumar on the ground that they had defaulted in payment of rent despite service of demand notice. The relationship between the landlord and the tenant was not disputed between the parties. So far as the period of rent is concerned that was also not disputed by the petitioners. The petitioners contended that arrears of rent stood paid/deposited upto 23rd April, 1999. So far as the shortfall in deposit is concerned, it was to the tune of Rs. 175/- while as in the other case it was to the tune of Rs. 250/-.

3. The Learned Additional Rent Controller passed an order under Section 15(1) of Rent Control Act on 12th March, 1999 and 27th September, 1999 directing the petitioner herein to pay or deposit rent @ Rs. 150/-. The parties were permitted to adduce their evidence on 27th April, 2000, the learned Additional Rent Controller in both the petitions arrived at a finding that the rate of rent was Rs. 250/- per month and accordingly the learned Additional Rent Controller ordered that petitioner herein in both the cases should pay or deposit the arrears of rent @ Rs. 250/- per month from December 1995 to 27.4.2000 after adjusting the amount already paid within a period of one month and the case was adjourned to 3rd June, 2000 for the purpose of observing the compliance. The petitioner did not deposit the rent within the stipulated period of one month on 3rd June, 2000, accordingly an order of eviction was passed by denying the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Rent Control Act to the petitioners. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal on 3rd July, 2000. The learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner herein on the ground that the petitioner deposited the rent beyond the period of one month, therefore the benefit of Section 14(2) could not be given. It is in this back drop that the petitioners have preferred the present two separate petitions before the Hon?ble High Court assailing the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The contention which has been raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that after passing of the order on 27th April, 2000, the petitioner had not deposited the arrears of rent @ Rs. 250/- per month within a period of one month. Against the order dated 27.4.2000 passed under Section 15(1), the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal on 29th May, 2000 which was dismissed in limini by the learned Tribunal. After dismissal of the appeal the petitioner had approached the learned ARC for getting the voucher signed for deposit of rent however the same could not be done as the learned ARC was on leave for two days. The learned ARC signed the voucher of the petitioner only on 2.6.2000 and it was only after that he could deposit the rent only on 3rd June, 2000. This resulted in delay of 4/5 days on account of which