The landlord, Ravinder Kumar Suri, filed a petition for eviction of the appellant under Section 14 1 a of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for short the Act on the ground, inter alia, that the appellant was in arrears of rent.
The appellant claimed that he had companyplied with the order and had sent the rent by cheques but the landlord did number encash the same.
The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
The landlord respondent number1 moved an application under Section 15 7 of the Act for striking off the defence of the appellant tenant on the ground that he did number companyply with the order.
1.6.1996 to 31.12.1999 amounting to Rs.930/ was being sent by cheque.
Even otherwise, the arrears of rent which were required to be sent were Rs.1260/ and number Rs.930/ .
Accordingly, he passed an order on 19.3.2001 by which the application filed by the landlord was allowed and the defence of the appellant was struck off.
The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the landlord, set aside the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal and restored that of the Rent Controller.
The direction in the order 20.12.1999 was that the appellant shall either pay or deposit the future rent by 15th of every succeeding month.
The appellant also filed a petition for quashing of certain findings which were recorded against him by the Rent Controller.
The Rent Controller passed an order under Section 15 1 of the Act on 20.12.1999 directing the appellant to deposit or pay to the landlord within one month the entire arrears of rent w.e.f.
The appellant preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 22.5.2001 with a direction to the appellant to deposit the whole arrears of rent along with penalty of the same amount within 30 days, failing which his defence shall stand struck off as directed by the Rent Controller.
The Rent Controller held that the appellant had neither paid the rent to the landlord number had deposited the amount in companyrt.
The landlord seriously disputed the fact that any cheque was sent to him.
The appellant also placed on record another letter dated 30.6.2000, wherein it was mentioned that rent for the period 1.2.2000 to 31.12.2000 was being sent through cheque.
The landlord challenged the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court.
In order to establish his case, the appellant placed on record a letter dated 3.1.2000 sent by its companynsel to the landlord, wherein it was mentioned that the rent at the rate of Rs.30/ per month w.e.f.
These appeals, by special leave, have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.9.2003 of Delhi High Court by which the writ petition filed by respondent number1, Ravinder Kumar Suri, under Article 227 of the Constitution was allowed, the order dated 22.5.2001 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal was set aside and the order dated 19.3.2001 of the Rent Controller was restored by which the defence of the appellant was struck off.
1.6.1996 and to companytinue to pay the future rent by 15th of each succeeding month.
This was also disputed by the landlord.
Even assuming the version of the appellant to be companyrect, he failed to either pay or deposit the rents for the months of January to May 2000 by the 15th day of each succeeding month.
The appellant did number lead any evidence to establish the fact that the amount as claimed in this letter was actually sent to the landlord.
2725 2726 of 2004 P. MATHUR, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of S.L.P. Civil Nos.
By the same order the writ petition filed by the tenant appellant was dismissed.
The appellant is a tenant of a companymercial premises situate in Karol Bagh, New Delhi on a rental of Rs.30/ per month.
