RAJBIR SINGH Vs. MOHAN LAL SHARMA
LAWS(DLH)-1996-4-45
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on April 24,1996

RAJBIR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
MOHAN LAL SHARMA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SANTOSH MEHTA V.OM PARKASH [REFERRED TO]
SUALIM VS. SUNILA CHUGH [REFERRED TO]
RAM SWAROOP KATHURIA VS. NAGPAL OPTICAL CO [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SURINDER KUMAR JAIN VS. CHAMPA RANI [LAWS(DLH)-1999-9-34] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

C.M.Nayar,J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 15, 1993 passed by Shri K.S.Gupta, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, which inter-alia upheld the order passed by Shri P.D.Gupta, Additional Rent Controller striking out the defence of the appellant under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for not making payment/deposit in compliance withthe order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act.
(2.)The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Filed petition for eviction on the ground of non payment of rent which was being contested by the appellant. On April 1, 1991 respondent filed an application on the allegations that an order under Section 15(1) of the Act was passed against the appellant on 2nd November, 1989 for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.250.00 per month with effect from March 1, 1987. On the application filed for withdrawal of rent it was reported that the appellant deposited only a sum of Rs.8250.00 by way of arrears of rent upto November, 1989. As he failed to comply with the order under Section 15(1), prayer was made that his defence may be struck out. The appellant did not dispute the passing of the order under Section 15(1) of the Act on November 2, 1989 for deposit of rent with effect from March 1, 1987 at the rate of Rs.250.00 per month as alleged. However, it was stated that the said order had been duly complied with.
(3.)The appellant also filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on September 17, 1991 wherein it was alleged that in compliance of the order under Section 15(1) of the Act dated November 2, 1989, a sum of Rs.8250.00 was deposited by him towards the rent upto the period November, 1989 as advised by his counse Rl. The said counsel did not explain to him the later part of the order passed under Section 15(1) which directed h to pay or deposit the future monthly rent also and only on August 1, 1991 when he came to Court he learnt about the serving of the application filed under Section 15(7) of the Act by the respondent. It was alleged that on coming to know about the contents of the order under Section 15(1) of the Act he immediately deposited on August 14, 1991 Rs.6000.00 towards arrears of rent upto December 31, 1991. The default in not depositing the future rent month by month after November, 1989 was thus neither intentional nor deliberate. It was prayed that the default, accordingly, may be condoned.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.