The Additional Rent Controller dismissed the petitions of the appellants holding that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of sub section 2 of section 14 of the Act on account of the deposit made by them in pursuance of the provisions of section 15 of the Act of 1958.
400, Rs.
The appellants feeling aggrieved took up the matter before the Rent Control Tribunal by way of appeal but the Tribunal relying upon Dhan Raj Jayna v. S.P. Singh, A.I.R. 1973 Delhi 297 dismissed the appeal.
The tenants respondents had applied for fixation of standard rent before the Rent Controller who fixed standard rent of the three premises but on appeal the order of the Rent Controller fixing standard rent was set aside by the High Court by its order dated May 22, 1972 holding that the tenants were liable to pay the agreed rent.
From the Order dated 17.9.75 of the Delhi High Court in A.O. No.
He was of the view that the benefit once derived by the respondents under section 13 2 of the Act of 1952 will number attract the proviso to sub section 2 and they are entitled to the benefit of number eviction under section 14 2 of the Act of 1958.
1094 per month respectively.
These petitions for eviction were resisted by the respondents on the ground, inter alia, that they had deposited B the arrears of rent as provided by section 15 of the Act of 1958.
The respondents, however, deposited the arrears of rent within one month of the date of the order as companytemplated by section 15 of the Act of 1958 and sought the protection of number eviction within the meaning of sub section 2 of section 14 of the Act of 1958.
9607 known as Pyare Lal Building, Janpath and Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, is owned by the appellants.
The appellants have number approached this Court by special leave.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It appears that the tenants fell in arrears of rent and did number pay the same in spite of service of numberice of demand.
They were entitled to get the benefit of sub section 2 of section 14 and the benefit derived by the respondents under section 13 2 of the Act of 1952 will number stand in the way of the respondents getting the benefit of sub section 2 of section 14 of the Act of 1958.
The appellants took up the matter to the High Court in second appeal but those appeals also met the same fate.
P. Bhatt and Parveen Kumar for the Respondents.
Premises No.
273 and Rs.
The appellants, however, sought the advantage of the proviso to sub section 2 of section 14 and alleged that the respondents had derived the benefit of number eviction under section 13 2 of the Act of 1952 once and they are number entitled to get the same benefit under section 14 2 twice over in view of the proviso to sub section of section 14 of the Act of 1958.
Madan Bhatia and Sushil Kumar for the appellants.
The appellants, therefore, were companypelled to file three different petitions for eviction of the respondents under section 13 1 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952 .
1921 of 1976 etc.
144 of 1975.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G B. MISRA, J. The fate of the present companynected appeals by special leave hinges upon the interpretation of section 14 2 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1958 .
During the pendency of the proceedings the Act of 1958 came into force.
Three different portions of the said building were let out to three different firms, M s. Pearey Lal Workshop P Ltd., M s. Ghaziabad Engineering Co. P Ltd. and M s. Pearey Lal Sons, on agreed rent of Rs.
The appellants therefore filed three petitions giving rise to the present appeals for eviction on the ground of second default.
