V.B.BANSAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order dated 20.8.1991 of Shir M.K. Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi thereby allowing the application of the landlords under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and striking off the defence of the petitioner/tenant in the eviction proceedings filed against them by the respondents dismissing his application under Section 151 and 153, Civil Procedure Code, as also the order dated 27.11.1992 of Shri K.S. Gupta,Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, thereby dismissing his appeal.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the respondents filed a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act against the petitioner/tenant for his eviction from premises No. 24/6, Naraini Bhawan. It was inter alia pleaded by owner/landlord that Ram Kishan Gupta has been a regular defaulter in making the payment of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 145/- per month, excluding electricity and water charges, which is recoverable from 1.9.1988 and Rs. 520/-, which has neither been paid nor tendered. Notice was sent to the tenant/respondent the case came up for hearing on 8.8.1989 when counsel of the tenant/respondent appeared and filed the written statement. the learned Additional Rent Controller passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Act and directed the tenant to pay or deposit the entire arrears of rent with effect from 1.9.1988 upto the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit is made, at the rate of Rs. 145/- per month, within one month and to continue to pay or deposit the further rent month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month at the same rate. The case was adjourned to 31.8.1989 for filing of replication. On filing of replication by landlord the case was adjourned to 26.9.1989 for the recording of the evidence of the landlord. On 26.9.89 the case was adjourned to 3.1.1990 since evidence was not present on that date.
(3.) IN the meantime, an application under Section 15(7) of the Act was moved by the landlord, which was taken up on 17.11.1989 and notice was ordered to be issued. The tenant (petitioner herein) filed a reply, inter alia, stating that no order under Section 15(1) of the Act was passed in his presence. An application under Section 151 and Section 153, Civil Procedure Code was also made by the tenant with a prayer that correction be made of the order dated 8.8.1989 on the plea that neither the tenant nor his counsel was present and the said order has been passed without hearing arguments. Replies were filed by the landlords, controverting the averments made in the applications and after hearing counsel for the parties, the application under Section 15(7) of the Act, moved by the landlord (respondent herein) was allowed and the defence of the tenant was struck off. Application under Section 151/153, Civil Procedure code of the tenant was dismissed. The appeal filed by the tenant against the said order has been dismissed by the learned Rent control Tribunal.;