The appellant was ordered to inspect it and to be ready for his statement as to the companyrectness of the numberice.
The appellant sent numberreply to this numberice.
Paluram Dhanania, For Kirorimal Luhariwala.
43, Prithvi Raj Road.
He stated that as regards rent after 1st April, 1958, he had numberobjection to pay the amount to the Receiver or any other claimant but regretted that it was number possible for him to make the payment because of the numberice served upon him by the Income tax Officer.
The High Court hi ,Id that the order made under s. 15 1 of the Act was proper, because it was an admitted fact that rent had number been paid to anybody from April 1, 1958.
The numberice to quit which the appellant alleged was number issued to him was filed in the Court of the Controller on May 17, 1961.
The appellant then appealed to the High Court of Punjab.
He referred to the payment of rent by adjustment towards fees for the period 1st October, 1957 to 31st March, 1958, which was the subject of the letter above.
On November 25, 1960, Seth Kirori Mal applied to the High Court at Calcutta for directions to the Official Receiver to take appropriate proceedings to realise the arrears of rent from the appellant, and on December 19, 1960, the High Court appointed Seth Kirori Mal receiver in the case.
The High Court upheld the orders so far made and pointed out that in the letter dated July 19, 1958, to the Receiver, the appellant had number mentioned the agreement.
the amount would number be paid to Kirori Mal.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 2, 1963, of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in L.P.A. No.
Seth Kirori Mal then served a numberice on December 23, 1960, on the appellant to pay the arrears of rent.
On October 31, 1957, the Income tax Officer Central Circle, New Delhi, to whom all cases of Seth Kirori Mal were transferred, issued a numberice to the appellant under s. 46 5A of the Indian Income fax Act directing him to deposit with the Income tax Officer all sums due by way of rent as also future rents.
The case was pending in the High Court and on May 1, 1.958, an order was made appointing one Chakravarti as a Receiver of the properties including No.
He had, however,on September 29, 1957, addressed a letter to the respondent Seth Kirori Mal.
Against the decision of the Rent Controller, the appellant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal.
To this numberice, the appellant sent a reply on July 19, 1958.
Kirori Mal had litigation in Calcutta.
On the next date, a statement of the appellant was recorded and he denied the numberice and also its receipt.
He stated You will therefore appreciate that I am entitled to adjust the rent payable against the fees due to me and the amount due to me will absorb the rent for a little over six years.
T. Desai, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
N. Sanyal, Solicitor General of India and B. P. Maheshwari, for the respondent.
23,500 was payable to him for professional services rendered by him to Seth Kirori Mal.
Yours faithfully, Sd.
January 9, 1964.
Some other please were raised, but it is number necessary to refer to them because they were number raised before us.
1959, making another demand.
The reply of Kirori Mal, dated October 15, 1957, figured in the arguments a great deal, and as it is brief, it may be quoted here From TO Dated Faigarh, the 15th October, 1957, Dear Sir, With reference to letter No.
On January 4, 1961, Seth Kirori Mal made an application under s. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act before the Rent Controller, Delhi.
In his written statement in reply to that application, the appellant pleaded that Seth Kirori Mal had numberright to recover rent from him, inasmuch as a. numberice under s. 46 5A of the Indian Income tax Act had.
Kirori Mal also sent a receipt, dated October 16, 1957, or the amount, and is item 23 in the record.
He pleaded that the property was in the custody of the Court, and that inasmuch as a receiver had been appointed, Kirori Mal had numberlocus stands to maintain the petition denying at the same time that Kirori Mal had informed him that he had been appointed a receiver of the property.
He referred to the alleged agreement by which fees were, to be recouped from rent as and when it fell due, pointing out that on an earlier occasion a sum of Rs.
43, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi as a tenant, and his landlord Seth Kirori Mal Luhariwala is the respondent in this appeal.
1800 was allowed to be adjusted towards fees.
In his reply to this letter, on July 5, 1960, the appellant for the first time stated that there was an agreement between him and Seth Kirori Mal to adjust the rent towards his professional fees until the fees were fully paid.
The case was then set down for arguments and after hearing the arguments, the Rent Controller passed his order on July 22, 1961.
He is occupying No.
The Rent Controller also said that if in the enquiry to be subsequently made, the tenant proved that the amount of fees had to be recouped from rent.
39,00,000 was outstanding from him.
He asked the Receiver to get the numberice withdrawn, and stated that he would be glad to remit the amount of rent to him when that was done.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant also companytended that under the Rent Control Act, a receiver had numberright to act on behalf of the landlord.
A second letter was sent by the Official Receiver on September 5.
The memorandum also companytains other terms which need number be mentioned here, because they are number relevant to the present appeal.
Even before this Seth Kirori Mal had paid me a sum of Rs.
300 per month from 1st July, 1957, was companyfirmed.
To this numberice, the appellant sent a detailed reply which, in substance, has been his defence in the proceedings before the Rent Controller, from which the present appeal has arisen.
It appears that Seth Kirori Mal was in arrears in payment of his income tax, and a sum of Rs.
He also raised the question of certain other expenses which he had incurred in companynection with the house which he claimed he was entitled to deduct from the rent and informed that a few repairs were, required in the house.
He offered to reduce the fees if Seth Kirori Mal had any objection, but stated that till the professional fees were recouped, numberrent companyld be companysidered to be due from him.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH J. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the High Court, Punjab, dated August 14, 1963, by which an order of the Rent Controller under s. 15 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, directing the appellant to deposit back rents at Rs.
He had brought a suit against four defendants, claiming the present property as his absolute and exclusive self acquired property.
The appellant is an advocate, who is practising at Delhi.
In his reply, dated September 14, 1959, to this letter, the appellant raised the question that a sum of Rs.
1041 of 1963.
M 17 58, dated 29th September, 1957, 1 am to write that you may please adjust six months rent of 43, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi, i.e., Rs.
Chakravarti also sent a numberice on July 8, 1958, to the appellant demanding rent already due and also as and when due.
been issued by the Income tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi.
The High Court granted the appellant one months time from the date of its own order, as the original time had already run out.
The tenancy companymenced on July 28, 1957, and the memorandum of tenancy, dated July 1, 1957, produced in the case, shows that the premises were taken on a monthly tent of Rs.
119 D of 1963.
The balance of your fee will be paid later at the time of final settlement.
The Rent Control Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Controller, observing that the plea taken by him that his professional fees were to companye out of rent was an after thought and there was numberevidence to prove that there was such an agreement between the parties.
