Prem Chand Pandit, J. - (1.) MURARI Lal, Respondent, is the owner of the house in dispute. He had given it on rent to Durga Sarup Bhatnagar, Petitioner, on a monthly rent of Rs. 125. The Respondent filed an application for ejectment against the Petitioner under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that he bona fide required these premises for himself and the other dependent members of his family and that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation with him.
(2.) THIS application was resisted by the Petitioner, who admitted the tenancy, but controverter the grounds of ejectment. It Was also pleaded that the rate of rent was Rs. 100 per mensem and not Rs. 125, as alleged by the Respondent. After hearing the counsel for the parties, on 29th December, 1962 the Additional Controller passed an order under Section 15(2) of the Act, directing the tenant to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs. 110 per mensem with effect from 15th July, 1961 up -to -date, after deducting the amount already deposited by him. within one month and future rent at this very rate by the 15th of each following month. The Petitioner did, not comply with this order, and, as a result, the Respondent made an application on 25th February 1963 to strike out his defence. In reply, the Petitioner submitted that his counsel did not inform him about the order dated 29th December, 1962 and that is why the default had occurred. Under the circumstances, he made a prayer for the condo nation of the delay. The Additional Controller, however, after hearing the parties, struck off the defence of the Petitioner on 28th March, 1963. The case was then adjourned to 29th March, 1963, on which date after recording the evidence of the Respondent, the order of eviction was passed.
(3.) THE Petitioner, being aggrieved by this order filled an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, who came to the conclusion that since the tenant had not filed any appeal against the order, dated 28th March, 1963, striking out his defence, that order became final under Section 43 of the Act and could not be challenged in appeal against the final order of eviction, On the evidence produced by the landlord, the learned Rent Control Tribunal confirmed the finding of the Additional Controller to the effect that he bona fide required the house for occupation as a residence for himself and the other members of his family. It was also found that the landlord had no other reasonably suitable accommodation with him. As a result, the appeal was dismissed. Against this order, the present second appeal has been filed by the tenant.;