Grover, J. - (1.) These two appeals by special leave are from a judgment of the Delhi High Court.
(2.) It appears that one Manohar Lal was the owner of the premises in dispute situate in Kishangunj, Delhi. He died leaving behind him his brother Krishan Lal and two sons Hari Shanker and Gauri Shanker. In June 1943, Krishan Lal let out the premises to Hindustan Trust Pvt. Ltd. of which he was the Managing Director from 1943 to 1952. In 1947 Krishan Lal filed a suit for partition in Agra Court against his nephews Hari Shanker and Gauri Shanker. In 1952 Krishan Lal became the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the respondent company. His son-in-law D. Sanghi become the Managing Director. On March 21, 1952 a compromise was effected in the suit for partition. The virtue of that compromise Gauri Shanker - the present appellants -was declared to be the owner of the property in dispute and he was held entitled to realize its rent with effect from January 1, 1958. The deed of compromise was signed by Krishan Lal and all the other parties concerned. On May 26, 1958 a decree was passed in accordance with the compromise. On June 12, 1958 the appellant gave notice to the respondent company to pay rent to him with effect from January 1, 1958. A copy of this notice was sent to Krishan Lal as well. On July 7, 1958 the appellant sent a reminder to the respondent to expedite the sending of the reply or to discuss the matter with him personally. On July 17, 1958 the appellant demanded by means of a letter the rent due apart from the supply of certain information with regard to the measurements of the building and land in possession of the respondent. A reply was sent by D. Sanghi Managing Director of the respondent-company dated July 18, 1958. He wrote, inter alia that regarding the rent for the month ending on 30th June 1958 the matter had been referred to Krishan Lal and on receipt of his instructions in writing the rent shall be paid accordingly. By means of a letter dated July 23, 1958 Krishan Lal wrote to two tenants including the respondent that the factory in which they were tenants had gone to the share of the appellant Gauri Shanker as a result of the partition among the co-owners and all arrears of rent due after January 1, 1958 should be paid to him. According to the appellant he was not being allowed to enter the premises and take measurements and, therefore, he filed the suit on October 28, 1958 for a mandatory injunction for being allowed to do so. In the written statement dated December 7, 1958, filed by the respondent the position taken up by the respondent was that it had not been supplied any copy of the partition decree proving that the property had fallen to the share of the appellant in partition nor had Krishan Lal the previous landlord sent any instructions for attornment in favour of the appellant. It was denied that the appellant was the owner of the property in dispute. On March 23, 1959 the appellant applied for fixation of standard rent against the respondent company impleading Krishan Lal and Hari Shanker as pro forma respondents. By a written statement filed on May 20, 1959 the respondent denied the relationship of landlord-tenant between the company and the appellant and claimed to be a tenant only under Krishan Lal. By means of a notice dated August 17, 1959 sent by Shri Triyugi Narain Advocate on behalf of the appellant the respondent was informed that it was the tenant of the appellant in the property known as "Bagh Barafkhana" at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- and that the appellant was entitled to receive rent with effect from January 1, 1958. The following portion from that notice may usefully be extracted: "That you have fallen in arrrear of rent and a sum of Rs. 5700/- is due from you as rent from 1st January 1958 to 21st July 1959 which you have failed to pay in spite of repeated requests and demands. It is therefore to serve you with this notice of demand asking you to pay the said sum of Rs. 5700/- and future rent within the statutory period failing which you will render yourself liable to ejectment and legal proceedings will be initiated against you at your risk as to costs and consequences". A reply dated August 27, 1959 was sent to Shri Triyugi Narain Advocate by Shri Iqbal Krishana Advocate on behalf of the respondent. It was denied therein that the respondent company was a tenant of the appellant. It was asserted that it was only a tenant under Krishan Lal at a rent of Rs. 100/- which had been paid to him regularly. On October 27, 1959 the appellant filed an application for eviction of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent. Krishan Lal and Hari Shanker were impleaded as pro forma respondents to the petition. On Nov. 30, 1959 a written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent-company by D. Sanghi in his capacity as the Managing Director. The relationship of land lord-tenant was denied between the appellant and the company but no plea was taken that the notice to quit had not been served or that it was defective. It appears that the proceedings before the Rent Controller dragged on for several years. On October 23, 1967 for first time the respondent applied under Order 6, R. 17, Civil Procedure Code, for permission to amend the written statement so as to introduce the plea of want of notice to quit. That application was allowed by the Rent Controller on the ground that only a question of law was involved although the appellant seriously contested the grant of the prayer relating to the amendment at that stage.
(3.) It may be mentioned that the appellant had applied under S. 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 for deposit of rent but the respondent company filed objection denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. On January 15, 1960 the Rent Controller ordered the deposit to be made at the rate of Rs. 175/- per month with effect from July 1, 1959. On December 1, 1962, S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was extended to Delhi by means of a notification made under S.1 of that Act. On July 14, 1965 the appellant moved the Rent Controller under sub-ss. (5) and (7) of S. 15 of the Rent Act. It was submitted, inter alia, that the tenant had failed to deposit the admitted arrears of rent with effect from July 10, 1959 and future rent every month in accordance with law and he had been disputing the title of the landlord. It was prayed that his defence be struck off. On November 19, 1965 detailed order was made by the Rent Controller. By that time certain amounts had been deposited by the respondent. The Rent Controller condoned the default on the part of the tenant on payment of Rs. 300/- as costs. The appellant filed an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal against the order of the Rent Controller but the same was dismissed against which a second appeal was preferred by him to the High Court on January 19, 1967. Finally on August 28, 1968 the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the respondent. An appeal was filed against that order to the Rent Control Tribunal.;