IMPORTANT POINT
A tenant denying the landlord-tenant relationship forfeits the right to deposit arrears of rent under the Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT :

Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.: This common order will dispose off both the above-captioned revision petitions being CR-3822-1995 and CR-3823-1995 which have been preferred by the tenant-petitioner challenging the orders dated 04.10.1993 and 11.09.1995 passed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority respectively.

2. In brief, the facts relevant to the present lis are that an ejectment petition was filed by the landlord-respondents (Mandir Pala Mal Gobind Ram and others) against the tenant-petitioner averring therein that the property was leased out to the tenant-petitioner through Gobind Ram on 07.05.1974 @ Rs.20/- per month. Gobind Ram expired on 13.01.1990. On the basis of a Will dated 07.11.1989 executed by Gobind Ram in favour of Radha Kant and others, they stepped into the shoes of Gobind Ram and, therefore, there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The eviction of the tenant-petitioner was sought on the grounds of arrears of rent since 01.07.1980; ceased to occupy the demised shops; and that the demised shops had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The tenant-petitioner contested the ejectment petition and admitted that he was tenant in the demised shops @ Rs.20/- per month. He did not specifically deny that he had taken the demised shops on rent from Mandir Pala Mal Gobind Ram through Gobind Ram, however, the Will executed by Gobind Ram was disputed by the tenant-petitioner. It was further the plea taken that the demised shops were owned by Idol installed in the Mandir and that the ejectment petition could not have been filed, therefore, denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. It was further the plea that the dispute was such that it could not be decided by the Civil Court. Replication was filed wherein it was stated that earlier also a petition had been filed by Mandir Pala Mal Gobind Ram and that the tenant-petitioner herein had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and that now he was estopped from taking up a new stand.

3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:

1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant from the shop in dispute on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent etc. as alleged ? OPA

2. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent etc. as alleged ? OPA

3. Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the premises in dispute ? If so, its effect ? OPA

4. Whether the premises in dispute is unsafe and unfit for human habitation ? OPA

5. Relief.

4. The Rent Controller vide order dated 04.10.1993 held the tenant-petitioner liable for ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred. Though, a single appeal was preferred by the tenant-petitioner before the Appellate Authority, however, two revision petitions have been preferred challenging the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority since there are two shops in dispute.

5. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner would contend that the tenant-petitioner is tenant in the demised shops and had subsequently deposited the rent assessed and hence the ejectment order was bad in law. It is further the contention that even if the tender is not taken to be a correct tender, the Rent Controller ought to have given one opportunity to the tenant-petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the landlord-respondents would contend that once the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied and the petition is on the ground of arrears of rent and that once the tenant is unable to prove his contention, the tenant cannot be given another opportunity to tender the rent. In support of his arguments he has relied upon judgments of this Court in the cases of Hukma Devi vs. Bhagwan Dass [2003(1) RCR (Rent) 533], Jagdish Singh vs. Mohan Lal [2004(2) RCR (Rent) 114], Yashpal Singla vs. Vijay Kumar [2004(1) RC