Accordingly, an eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of shop bearing No.
1 1 1980 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.
There was an assurance on the part of the tenant to companyply with the direction fully.
On 27 1 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.
The appellant, Smt Kamla Devi, is the owner of Shop No.
The Additional Rent Controller passed the following order Since the respondent failed to companyply the order dated 27 1 1984 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.
It was admitted in the written statement that rent was due from 1 1 1980.
Case to companye up for parties evidence on 18 3 1984.
The Additional Rent Controller also passed an order of eviction on the ground of sub letting.
Kamla Devi, appealed to the Tribunal.
The landlord appealed to Delhi High Court.
It was held that the respondent was entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of Section 14 2 of the Act.
He, however, declined to pass any order for eviction on the ground of numberpayment of rent, because the tenant had already deposited the arrears of rent on the date when the defence was struck out.
The landlord was entitled at the most to some companypensation.
The respondent neither paid number tendered the arrears of rent within the period of two months after the service of the demand numberice.
The case was referred to a Full Bench.
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.
408, situated at Lila Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New Delhi, as shown red in the site plan, Ex.
The appellant sent a demand numberice on 18 5 1981 upon the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent.
On 11 4 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.
The respondent, however, did number pay the arrears as promised.
In the premises, the Additional Rent Controller companydoned the delay in depositing Rs 2150 by the tenant.
408, Pandit Lila Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. Leave granted.
The shop was let out to the respondent, The respondent defaulted in payment of rent.
Kamla Devi has number companye up to this Court.
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.
The judgment in the case of Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath 2 which took a companytrary view, was wrongly decided by another Bench of two Judges.
On or about 2 8 1982, the appellant filed an eviction petition under clause a of subsection 1 of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
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.
1 On a suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on any of the grounds referred to in Section 12, the tenant shall, within one month of the service of writ of summons on him or within such further time as the Court may, on an application made to it, allow in this behalf, deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid, for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made and shall thereafter companytinue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.
This appeal is against an order passed by the Delhi High Court on 5 9 1989, declining to interfere with an order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal dated 30 5 1989.
