H.R. Khanna, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal filed by Tirlok Chand, a tenant of the shops in dispute, is directed against the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal affirming on appeal the order of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the Appellant from the shops in dispute.
(2.) THE brief facts of the present case are that the Appellant is occupying the shops in dispute as a tenant of the Respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 63. The Respondent filed an application on 13th December, 1961, under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for ejectment of the Appellant from the shops in dispute on the ground that in spite of a notice of demand the Appellant, had not paid the rent amounting to Rs. 945 for the period from 1st September, 1960 till 30th November, 1961. Some other grounds of ejectment were also mentioned but we are not concerned with them now. The Appellant admitted the tenancy and the agreed rate of rent but denied his liability to be evicted. The Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the Appellant on the ground of non -payment of rent. It was also held that the Appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) read with Section 15(1) of the Act because the Appellant had already availed of that benefit in previous proceedings. On appeal, the order of the Rent Controller was, as already stated, affirmed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal.
(3.) AT the hearing of the second appeal it has not been disputed that a previous petition was filed by the Respondent for ejectment of the Appellant from the premises in dispute and in those proceedings the Appellant availed of the benefit of the provisions of Sub -section (2) of Section 14 read with Sub -section (1) of Section 15 of the Act by depositing the arrears of rent with the result that the aforesaid petition was dismissed. It is, however, argued by Mr. Kapur, learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the mere fact of the Appellant having once availed of the benefit of the provisions of Sub -section (2) of Section 14 would not prevent his claiming the benefit of that Sub -section over again in the present proceedings. The Controller, it is urged, made an error in not allowing the Appellant to pay or deposit the rent in accordance with Sub -section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in spite of the application of the Appellant for that purpose. This contention, in my opinion, is devoid of force. Clause (a) of the proviso to Sub -section (1) of Section 14 of the Act provides that the Controller may order the ejectment of the tenant, who has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date of the notice of demand for arrears of rent, and reads as under: 14 (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: (a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the manner provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882).;