1. This is an appeal arising out of an order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT), who has not agreed with the appellant/landlord to grant him interest on the arrears of rent which was not paid earlier on account of the dispute raised by the respondent regarding the rate of rent but were paid subsequent to the adjudication about the rate of rent by the RCT. In fact the grievance pertains to an order passed by the first appellant tribunal whereby an appeal filed by the appellant before the said Tribunal was decided on 15.02.2000 restricting the payment of interest on the arrears of rent deposited after the adjudication of the quantum of rent by the respondent only to be payable w.e.f. 20.10.1995 which was the date when learned Additional Rent Controller adjudicated the rate of rent as payable by the respondent/tenant to appellant as `370/- and not `70/-

2. According to the appellant after the amendment of Section 26 of Delhi Rent Control Act w.e.f. 01.12.1998, the duty to pay the interest @ 25% in addition to the amount due towards rent was upon the tenant and such payment ought to have been made without their being any demand. It will be appropriate to take note of the factual backdrop of the aforesaid case and the submissions on behalf of the appellant which are reproduced hereunder:

2. The appellant/landlord served the notice of demand dated 01.02.1987 on the respondent/tenant inter alia demanding the arrears of rent @ `370/- per month since January, 1986. The amount was neither paid nor tendered within a period of two months are required under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In these circumstances, the landlord filed an eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act before the Court of the learned Rent Controller on or about 10/13.04.1987. 3. The tenant in his written statement took a plea that the rate of rent was not `370/- per month but `70/- per month and that the rent till 30.11.1986 has been paid by the tenant to the landlord. 4. As an interim measure, the learned Rent Controller by an order dated 26.07.1988 passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Act requiring the tenant to make the payment and/or deposit of the entire arrears as admitted by him at the rate of `70/- per month and continued to do so month by month. The said order was challenged by the tenant in appeal, which appeal finally came to be dismissed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal on 21.09.1988. 5. On the amendment of the Act w.e.f. 01.12.1988, the order dated 26.07.1988 was modified and the tenant was directed to deposit the rent with an increase of 10% i.e. at the rate of rent of `77/- per month. 6. After a thorough trial, the learned Rent Controller by a judgment dated 20.10.1995 came to a categorical conclusion that the plea of the tenant was incorrect and the rate of rent was `370/- per month and was due w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Accordingly, directions were made to the tenant to clear the entire arrears within a month, being a case of first default. An appeal filed by the tenant against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal by an order dated 29.03.1996. 7. The matter in the meanwhile was pending before the learned Rent Controller for compliance of his directions dated 20.10.1995, the landlord requested the learned Rent Controller to also grant him the interest on the delayed payment as mandatorily required under Section 26 of the Act, submitting inter alia that the interest is to be treated as an integral part of the rent. The said request of the landlord was not acceded to by the learned Rent Controller and was rejected vide order dated 13.05.1996

3. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord filed an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court being the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal decided the said appeal on 15.02.2000 and observed that since the conclusive finding about the rate of rent being `370/- per annum were arrived at by learned