Accordingly, an eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of shop bearing No.408, situated at Lila Ram Market, .Masjid Moth, New Delhi, as shown red in the site plan, Ex.
There was an assurance on the part of the tenant to companyply with the direction fully.
1.1.80 within one month of the passing of this order and companytinue to pay or deposit the subsequent rent month by month the 15th of each succeeding month.
The Additional Rent Controller passed the following order Since the respondent failed to companyply the order dated 27.1.84 under Section 15 1 , he was number entitled to benefit under Section 14 2 of the Act and as such he was liable to suffer straight eviction order.
RW 1/2.
The appellant, Smt.
On 27th January, 1984 the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, passed an order to the following effect I direct the respondent to pay or deposit the entire arrears of rent Rs.50/ w.e.f.
It was admitted in the written statement that rent was due from 1 st January, 1980.
The tenant, thereafter, deposited the entire amount of rent due up to date.
The landlord appealed to Delhi High Court.
The Additional Rent Controller also passed an order of eviction on the ground of subletting.
Case to companye up for parties evidence on 18.3.1984.
He, however, declined to pass any order for eviction on the ground of number payment of rent, because the tenant had already deposited the arrears of rent on the date when the defence was struck out.
The shop was let out to the respondent, The respondent defaulted in payment of rent.
The case was referred to a Full Bench.
The appellant sent a demand numberice on 18.5.1981 upon the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent.
On 11th April, 1984 the appellant filed an application under sub section 7 of Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for striking out the defence and to proceed with the hearing of the application on the ground that the tenant had failed to make payment or any deposit of the arrears of rent.
On October 15, 1965 the Additional Rent Controller struck out the defence of the tenant stating that on the date of the order there were arrears of rent.
The respondent, however, did number pay the arrears as promised.
The landlord made an application under Section 15 7 of the Act and prayed that the defence of the appellant against eviction be struck out.
Kamla Devi has number companye up to this Court.
On or about 2.8.1982, the appellant filed an eviction petition under clause a of sub section 1 of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
The respondent neither paid number tendered the arrears of rent within the period of two months after the service of the demand numberice.
Kamla Devi, is the owner of Shop No.408, Pandit Lila Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
The judgment in the case of Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath and another, 1984 3 SCC 111, which took a companytrary view, was wrongly decided by another Bench of two Judges.
Kamla Devi, appealed to the Tribunal.
Thereafter the respondent paid a sum of Rs.500/ to the appellant promising to pay the arrears before expiry of the period stipulated in the order.
The Additional Rent Controller on receipt of the application of the .landlord passed an order under section 15 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within a month and thereafter deposit an amount equivalent to the rent month by month.
SEN, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is against an order passed by the Delhi High Court on 5th September, 1089, declining to interfere with an order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal dated 30th May, 1989.
