Avadh Behari Rohatgi

( 1 ) THIS is a tenant s appeal. The only question in this appeal is : "has the tenant enjoyed the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) the Act ?

( 2 ) ON March 15, 1976 the landlord Janak Raj, respondent issued a notice to the tenant Ved Rattan Bros , appellants in this case demanding arrears of rent from November 1965 to February, 1966 at the agreed rate of Rs. 200 per month in respect of the shop and court-yard which he had let to the tenant in April 1963.

( 3 ) ON May 16, 1976 the tenant made a reply to the notice. He complained that in November 1965 the landlord had forcibly occupied a portion of the demised permises and removed the tenant s goods therefrom. He said : "you have, therefor, become dis-entitled to the entire rent of the premises till vou restore possession".

( 4 ) ON May 21, 1976, the landlord filed an eviction petition on the ground that the tenant was in arrears and had not paid rent inspite of service of notice of demand onim. During the pendency of the eviction case the Additional Controller made an order undar Section 15 (1) of the Act requiring the tenant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 120. 00. Subsequently, in a proceeding launched by the tenant, the standard rent of the premises was fixed at Rs. 81. 25 w. e. f. April 7, 1968.

( 5 ) BY order dated September 20, 1975, the Controller, holding that the landlord had deprived the tenant of a part of the premises, directed the tenant to deposit within one month the arrears ofrentattherateofrs. l80. 00 per month instead of the agreed rent of Rs. 200. 00 from November 1, 1965 to April 6, 1968 and at the rate of Rs. 73. 25 per month instead of the standard rent of Rs. 81. 25 from April ", 1968 onwards. He further held that if rent is deposited in these terms, the tenant shall not be evicted and shall be deemed to have enjoyed the benefit under Section 14 (2) of the Act. It is not in dispute that in terms of the Controller s order the tenant made the deposit of the entire arrears of rent.

( 6 ) FROM this order two appeals were taken to the Tribunal. One was by the landlord and the other by the tenant. The landlord s appeal was that the Controller was in errer in making a reduction of Rs. 20. 00 from Rs. 200. 00 per month which was the agreed rent in respect of the period November I, 1965 to April 6, 1968. His second complaint was that in respect of the period from April 7, 1968 onvards, the Controller ought not to have made a reduction of Rs. 8. 00 from the standard rent which was fixed at Rs. 81. 25.

( 7 ) THE Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the landlord. It held that the Controller was not justified in reducing the standard rent from Rs. 81. 25 to Rs. 73. 25 as the Controller had, at the time of fixing the standard rent, taken the the tenant s plea of dispossession from a part of the demised premises into account ,and had in fact fixed the standard rent in respect of only that portion of the premises which was actually in the occupation of the tenant. As for the period from November 1, 1965 to April 6,1968 the Tribunal, in agreement with the Controller, held that the rent ought to be reduced from Rs. 200. 00 per month to Rs. 180. 00 because the landlord had deprived the tenant of a part of the demised premises. In the result the Tribunal, modifying the order of the Controller, directed the tenant to deposit within one month rent at Rs. 180. 00 per month from November 1, 1965 to April 6, 1968 and from April 7, 1968 onwards at the standard rent of Rs. 81. 25 per month. At the end of the order the Tribunal said :

"in case the rent is so deposited the ground of non-payment of rent will stand satisfied with the tenant enjoying the benefit of Section 14 (2)".

( 8 ) THE tenant s appeal against the order of the Controller was mainly on two points. Firstly, he urged that no notice terminating the contractual tenancy was served on him before filing the eviction petition and therefore the petition was not maintain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document