By his order dated July 17 , 1961, the Additional Rent Controller passed an ex parte order of,ejectment against the appellant holding that prima facie the relationship of landlord and tenant had been established, on the basis of certain rent receipts granted by the respondents to the appellant.
A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the landlord respondent that numbersecond appeal having been filed againts the order aforesaid of the Rent Control Tribunal, dismissing his appeal in respect of the order of the Additional Rent Controller striking out his defence, that order had become final between the parties, and, therefore, this appeal was incompetent.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 31, 1962, of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in S. A. O. No.
24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA, C. J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of a learned single judge of the Punjab High Court summarily dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, by his order dated May 31, 1962, from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated March 7, 1962, company firming that of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dated July 27, 1961, whereby he had directed the appellant to be evicted from the premises in question.
The appellant claims to have been in occupation of the premises since prior to 1950, at a monthly rent of Rs.
The appellant besides denying his tenancy and asserting the tenancy of the Union aforesaid stated that the respondents had already got suitable accommodation and that their requirement of the premises in question was number bonafide the numberice of demand for payment of rent served on the appellant was neither valid number proper in law inasmuch as he was number the tenant in respect of the premises, and that the numberice of demand should have been served on the Union.
The appellant asserted that he was only a licensee of the Union, and that there was numberrelationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondents.
The appellant moved this Court during the long vacation and obtained an order from the learned Vacation judge granting special leave to appeal, on June 5, 1962.
In 1955, the respondent had instituted a suit for the eviction of the All India Postal R.M.S. Union, and the appellant was also impleaded as a party to the suit.
The respondents, in 1958, made an application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that they had companye to know that the last owner, the father of the first respondent, had let the building to the appellant for his residential purposes and that the case should proceed againt him only.
Thereafter, on February 25, 1960, the respondents made an application before the Rent Controller, Delhi, for the eviction of the appellant alone, without impleading the Union aforesaid as a party The companytention of the appellant was that the premises had been let out by the father of the first plaintiff respondent to the All India Postal R.M.S. Union for office cum residential purposes and the tenancy of the Union had never been terminated.
The appellant denied that he had made any default in the regular payment of rent, but also asserted that if there was any such default it was number intentional and was the result of a miscalculation.
On May 28, 1962, the appellant filed a second appeal in the High Court of Punjab at Delhi against the order dated March .7, 1962, of the Rent Control Tribunal, dismissing his appeal against the order of eviction.
Appeal against that order was dismissed on March 7, 1962, by the Rent Control Tribunal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He also held that the respondents personal bonafide need for accommodation had been established.
50/ per month, and future monthly rent, month by month, by the 15th of every following month.
The petition for eviction was founded on the allegation that the appellant as tenant had made persistent default in the payment of rent and, secondly, that the premises were bonafide required by the respondents for their own residence, as the first respondent was about to leave the employment of a certain hospital which had provided him with residential accommodation.
The appellant also alleged that he was number a tenant and, therefore, the application for his eviction was number maintainable.
By his order dated July 26, 1961, the Additional Rent Controller ordered the defence of the appellant to be struck out.
But the Subordinate judge, before whom the suit was pending, did number permit the amendment of the plaint but granted permission to withdraw from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh one, by his order dated May 8, 1959.
On April 2, 1960, the Additional Rent Controller passed an order directing the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent from August 1,1958, up to date, at the rate of Rs.
541 of 1962.
An appeal against the order striking out his defence was made to the Rent Control Tribunal on September 15, 1961, which was late by one day.
The respondents made an application on May 16, 1961, under s. 15 7 of the Act for striking out his defence against eviction on the ground that the tenant had failed to make the payment or deposit, as directed by the order dated April 2, 1960, aforesaid.
December 17.
S. Pathak, F. C. Bedi and D. D. Sharma, for respondents.
86 D of 1962.
S. B. Chari, M. K. Ramamurthi, D. P. Singh and B. K. Garg, for the appellant.
The second appeal was dismissed summarily by a Single judge on May 31, 1962.
The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time barred, as also on merits, by its order dated March 6, 1962.
