HAFIZ ZAHIR UD DIN AHMAD Vs. PANDIT SHIB NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shop No. 3865/4, Khirki Taffazul Hussain, Urdu Bazar, Delhi was constructed by the appellant in June 1957. On October 1, 1957, it was let to the respondent at a rent of Rs. 30.00 per month. Upon the application of the respondent under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "1952 Act"), the Rent Court by its order dated November 2!, I960 fixed the standard rent of the shop at Rs. 11.46 Paise per month with effect from March 22, 1958. By the time the order fixing the standard rent was passed, the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "1958 Act") had come into force. By notice dated December 29, 1960 the appellant called upon the respondent to pay the arrears of rent for the months of November and December 1960 failing which an application for eviction of the respondent was threatened to be filed The arrears of rent were demanded at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month. The respondent replied to the notice on January 16, 1961, and stated that by reason of the fixing of standard rent, an excess amount of Rs. 550.35 Paise had already been paid to the appellant and that there were no arrears. There upon the appellant filed a petition for eviction of the respondent on March 8, 1961. The Rent Controller by his order dated October 20, 1961, granted a decree for eviction holding that the respondent was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month by reason of the provisions of section 6(2) (b) of the 1958 Act and not at the rate of Rs. 11.46 Paise per month, as contended by the respondent. He further held that the respondent having, in an earlier proceeding, obtained the benefit of an order under section 15(1) of the 1958 Act could not claim the same benefit again by reason of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 14 of the 1958 Act and since there was a default, as contemplated by the said proviso, the respondent had no defence.

(2.) The' respondent appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal who, by his judgment dated April 9, 1962, accepted the appeal and set aside the order of eviction. He further remanded the case to the Rent Controller to pass an order under section 15(1) of the Act directing the respondent to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month. The landlord-appellant has appealed.

(3.) The question that arises in this appeal is whether in the circumstances of this case, the respondent had disentitled himself to the benefit of an order under section 15(1) of the 1958 Act by reason of the proviso sub-section (2) of section 14. Clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 14 of the 1958 Act provides that an order of eviction can be made if the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of 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. Admittedly, such rent was not paid by the respondent within the period specified in clause (a). Even in such a case if it satisfies the provisions of section 14(2) an order for eviction cannot be passed if the tenant makes the payment or deposit as required by an order under section 15(1). Section 14(2) of the 1958 Act is in these terms :-