Chawla also pleaded that the companytractual rent was excessive and that the rent of the premises let to him companyld number exceed Rs.
The order of ejectment passed by the Controller was companyfirmed in appeal by the Rent Control Tribunal, and a second appeal to the High Court was also unsuccessful.
320 addressed to Sethi had been ignored by all the companyrts and iv that Chawla had made a deposit of rent for three months and if that deposit be taken into account Chawla was number in arrears for three companysecutive months at the date of the initiation of the proceeding.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated January 24, 1969 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No.
It did number bear the residential address of Sethi.
In support of the appeal companynsel for Chawla companytended that the Controller was bound to determine the standard rent of the premises in the proceeding instituted by Sethi, and since the Controller failed to do so the order in ejectment was illegal ii the Courts below were in error in holding that Chawla companyld number obtain the benefit of s. 14 2 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 iii that the legal presumption arising from the despatch of a postal money order for Rs.
Sethi deposed that numberone had tendered to him the postal money order.
Chawla again companymitted default for three companysecutive months, and Sethi companymenced another proceeding under s. 14 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for an order in ejectment.
Chawla has appealed to.
this Court with special ,leave.
Pursuant to a direction of the Rent Controller, Chawla deposited the rent claimed, and the amount deposited was paid over to Sethi and the proceeding was disposed of.
Not much need be said about companytentions iii and iv .
The fourth plea was number raised before the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal it was sought to be urged for the first time before the High Court and the High .Court declined to entertain that plea.
C. Misra and R.P. Aggarwal, .for the appellant.
50 per month and prayed that standard rent may be fixed by the Controller.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He pleaded that he had on March 19, 1963 sent to Sethi Rs.
1461 of 1969.
160 per month.
320 by a postal money order which Sethi had refused to accept.
Sethi filed petition under s. 14 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for an order in ejectment against Chawla on the plea that the latter had companymitted default in paying rent for seven months companysecutively.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Man Mohan Chawla was since before l958 tenant in certain premises in Delhi belonging to J.S. Sethi.
Hardev Singh and S.K. Gambhir, for the respondent.
Sethi denied that a money order sent by Chawla was brought to him by the postal peon.
The companytractual rent of the premises was Rs.
203 D of 1966.
The Controller rejected that companytention of Chawla and passed an order in ejectment.
Chawla denied the claim that he had companymitted default in payment of rent.
