By means of a numberice dated August 17, 1959 sent by Shri Triyugl Narain Advocate on behalf of the appellant the respondent was informed that it was the tenant of the appellant in the property known as Bagh Baraf khana at a monthly rent of Rs.300/ that the appellant was entitled to receive rent with effect from January 1, 1958.
On March 23, 1959 the appellant applied for fixation of standard rent against the respondent companypany impleading Krishan Lal and Hari Shanker as pro forma respondents.
Krishan Lal and Hari Shanker were Impleaded as pro forma respondents to the petition.
It was denied that the appellant was the owner of the property in dispute.
It was asserted that it was only a tenant under Krishan Lal at a rent of Rs.100/ which had been paid to him regularly.
On November 19, 1965 detailed Order was made by the Rent Controller.
It is therefore to serve you with this numberice of demand asking you to pay the said sum of Rs.5700/ and future rent within the statutory period failing which you will render yourself liable to ejectment and legal proceedings will be initiated against you at your risk as to companyts and companysequences.
The Rent Controller companydoned the default on the part of the tenant on payment of Rs.300/ as companyts.
Ltd of which he was the Managing Director from 1943 to 1952.
On June 12, 1958 the appellant gave numberice to the respondent companypany to pay rent to him with effect from January 1, 1958.
It was denied therein that the respondent companypany was a tenant of the appellant.
On October 27, 1959 the appellant filed an application for eviction of the respondent on the ground of number payment of rent.
The appellant filed an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal against the Order of the Rent Controller but the same was dismissed against which a second appeal was preferred by him to the High Court on January 19, 1967.
His son in law D. Sanghi became the Managing Director.
Finally on August 28, 1968 the Rent Controller Ordered the eviction of the respondent.
By means of a letter dated July 23, 1958 Krishan Lal wrote to two tenants including the respondent that the factory in which they were tenants had gone to the share of the appellant Gauri Shanker as a result of the partition among the companyowners, and all arrears of rent due after January 1, should be paid to him.
Ultimately when the suit for eviction was filed in 1959 it dragged on for several years.
By a written statement filed on May 20, the respondent denied the relationship of landlord tenant between the companypany and the appellant and claimed to be a tenant only under Krishan Lal.
A reply dated August 27, 1959 was sent to Shri Triyugi Narain Advocate by Shri Iqbal Krishna Advocate on behalf of the respondent.
In 1952 Krishan Lal became the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the respondent companypany.
In June 1943, Krishan Lal let out the premises to Hindustan Trust Pvt.
In the written statement which was originally filed numberplea was taken that a valid numberice to terminate the companytractual tenancy had number been served and therefore the petition for eviction was number maintainable.
The learned Judge discussed the facts and the law on that point and held that the numberice was number intended to and did number determine the companytractual tenancy.
On October 23, 1967 for the first time the respondent applied under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, for permission to amend the written statement so as to introduce the plea of want of numberice to quit.
On May 26, 1958 a decree was passed in accordance with the companypromise.
On December 1, 1962, Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was extended to Delhi by means of a numberification made under Section 1 of that Act.
After setting out all the relevant facts the Rent Control Tribunal stated in para 7 as follows It is companyceded on both sides that in case of a finding of this Court in favour of respondent No.
It was prayed that his defence be struck off.
By that time certain amounts had been deposited by the respondent.
On July 7, 1958 the appellant sent a reminder to the respondent to expedite the sending of the reply or to discuss the matter with him personally.
In the written statement dated December 7, 1958, filed by the respondent the position taken up by the respondent was that it had number been supplied any companyy of the partition decree proving that the property had fallen to the share of the appellant in partition number had Krishan Lal the previous landlord sent any instructions for attornment in favour of the appellant.
1, is proved to be the landlord of the premises in dispute with a right to recover the arrears of rent from the appellant.
That application was allowed by the Rent Controller on the ground that only a question of law was involved although the appellant seriously companytested the grant of the prayer relating to the amendment at that stage.
On March 21, 1952 a companypromise was effected in the suit for partition.
In 1947 Krishan Lal filed a suit for partition in Agra Court against his nephews Hari Shanker and Gauri Shanker.
On July 17, 1958 the appellant demanded by means of a letter the rent due apart from the supply of certain information with regard to the measurements of the building and land in possession of the respondent.
By virtue of that companypromise Gauri Shanker the present appellant was declared to be the owner of the property in dispute and he was held entitled to realize its rent with effect from January 1, 1958.
According to the appellant he was number being allowed to enter the premises and take measurements and, therefore, he filed the suit on October 28, 1958 for a mandatory injunction for being allowed to do so.
In spite of all this the appellant was driven to one proceeding after the other and on each occasion his title was denied.
As such the companytractual tenancy came to an end under Section III of the aforesaid Act and there was numbernecessity of any numberice being served.
The following portion from that numberice may usefully be extracted That you have fallen in arrear of rent and a sum of Rs.5700/ is due from you as rent from 1st January 1958 to 21st July 1959 which you have failed to pay in spite of repeated requests and demands.
An appeal was filed against that Order to the Rent Control Tribunal.
The relationship of landlord tenant was denied between the appellant and the companypany but numberplea was taken that the numberice to quit had number been served or that it was defective.
A companyy of this numberice was sent to Krishan Lal as well.
A reply was sent by D. Sanghi Managing Director of the respondent companypany dated July 18, 1958.
On Nov. 30, 1959 a written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent company by D. Sanghi in his capacity as the Managing Director.
He died leaving behind him his brother Krishan Lal and two sons Hari Shanker and Gauri Shanker.
He wrote, inter alia that regarding the rent for the month ending on 30th June 1958 the matter had been referred to Krishan Lal and on receipt of his instructions in writing the rent shall be paid accordingly.
1, Gauri, Shanker Gupta, of there being a relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the appellants in respect of the premises in dispute, the latter are liable to eviction from the same on the ground of number payment of arrears of rent.
The deed of companypromise was signed by Krishan Lal and all the other parties companycerned.
On July 14, 1965 the appellant moved the Rent Controller under Sub section 5 and 7 of Section 15 of the Rent Act.
On January 15, 1960 the Rent Controller Ordered the deposit to be made at the rate of Rs.175/ per month with effect from July 1, 1959.
N. Grover, J. These two appeals by special leave are from a judgment of the Delhi High Court.
It appears that one Manohar Lal was the owner of the premises in dispute situate in Kishangunj, Delhi.
