A tenant's claim of payment must be substantiated by evidence without necessitating prior inclusion in pleadings; the eviction application was dismissed due to lack of grounds.

1. This second appeal under S.39 of the Delhi. Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the tenant challanges the judgement and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 26th Aug., 1981 directing him to deposit all arrears of rent from 1st Nov., 1974 up to dale at Rs. 80/- per month within one month from the date of the said order and if the rent is deposited he would be deemed to have taken benefit of S.14(2) of the Act and in default order of eviction would be deemed to have been passed against him. The Additional Controller by his judgement and order dated 19th August, 1980 had directed the appellant to deposit rent with effect from 1st May, 1980 at Rs. 80/- per month and dismissed the eviction petition filed by the respondent under S.14(1)(a) of the Act.

2. Briefly the facts are that Parbati Devi respondent claimed eviction of the appellant under S.14(1)(a) of the Act alleging that he has been a tenant under her since 1st Nov., 1974 at Rs. 80/- per month, that a notice of demand dated 6th July, 1979 was served upon him requiring him to pay all arrears of rent for the period from 1st November, 1974 onwards at Rs. 80/- per month, that he neither paid nor tendered any rent and therefore he was liable to eviction. She also alleged that he was not entitled to benefit under S.14(2) of the Act as according to her he had already availed of the same by order dated 20th Dec., 1978 of the Rent Control Tribunal in the earlier proceedings between the parties. The notice of demand was served on 11th July, 1979 and the eviction application was filed on 20th Nov., 1979. The appellant in his written statement pleaded that he was a tenant since October - November. 1973, that he deposited two months rent in court in Suit No.33 of 1975, that a sum of Rs. 3360/- was paid in cash to the husband / attorney of the respondent on 1st June, 1979 that he had remitted Rs. 560/- and Rs. 480/- by money orders on 21st July, 1979 and 27th July, 1979 which were refused by the respondent, that previously no order directing him to deposit rent under S.15(1) of the Act was passed and that he had never enjoyed any benefit under S.14(2) of the Act

3. The following questions arise in this appeal:
1. Whether the appellant had previously enjoyed the benefit under S.14(2) of the Act?
2. Whether the appellant deposited Rs. 160/- as rent for two months in court.
3. Whether the appellant paid Rupees 3360/- in cash to the husband / attorney of the respondent on 1st June, 1979.
4. What amount on account of rent was due to the respondent - landlady on the date of notice of demand i.e. 6th July, 1979.
5. Whether the appellant tendered Rs. 560/- and Rs. 480/- by money orders dated 21st July, 1979 and 27th July, 1979 to the respondent. If so, to what effect?

4. On 21st Jan., 1975 Parbati Devi - respondent had filed an eviction petition against one Dharam Bir Gupta and Brij Lal Gautam, the present appellant which was dismissed by the Additional Controller vide order dated 27th July, 1976 holding that Brij Lal Gautam, the present appellant was tenant in the premises and not Dharam Bir Gupta, under the respondent a compromise however was arrived at in appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal on 20th December, 1978 wherein the present respondent made a statement accepting the appellant as the tenant under her with effect from 1st November, 1974 at Rs. 80/- per month and the appellant agreeing to pay all arrears of rent for the period from 1st Nov., 1974 at Rs. 80/- per month in eight equal monthly instalments. This order was passed by the Tribunal on