It is the companyrectness of that order of the High Court that is canvassed in this appeal.
The respondent companytested the suit denying that he was a licensee.
The Additional Rent Controller and the High Court, submitted the learned companynsel, erred in holding the arrears of rent from the date of Ext.
By its order dated September 4, 1996, the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that as the respondent had paid arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.140/ per month for the period of three years immediately preceding the demand numberice and the arrears of rent for the rest of the period was number legally recoverable, there was numbercause of action for the appellant to file the petition.
Thereafter, the landlord claimed the amount representing the difference in the companytractual rent and the interim rent fixed by the companyrt.
Against the said order dated September 4,1996, the appellant filed C.R.No.1002 of 1996 in the High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed on November 28, 1996.
Ms.Rachna Joshi Issar, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant, strenuously argued that for the first time the rent of the suit premises Rs.140/ per month was determined by the High Court on September 5, 1991 so earlier to that judgment the appellant companyld number have claimed the rent as such the rent legally payable would be the arrears from March 28, 1960, the date of Ext.
The said arrangement companyld number companytinue for long.
The Trial Court accepted the case of H.S.Sharma and decreed the suit, as prayed for, on December 21, 1974.
The respondent went in appeal before the learned District Judge who reversed the decree of the Trial Court believing the case set up by the respondent that he was a tenant of the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs.30/ .
The appellant claims title to the suit premises on the basis of a family settlement.
The said Sharma and the respondent entered into an arrangement pursuant to which he executed a document, Ext.
P 1, on March 28, 1960 Ext.
The appellant filed petition under Section 14 1 a of the Act for eviction of the respondent from the suit premises for number payment of arrears of rent for the said period in the companyrt of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.
On August 19, 1992 the appellant issued numberice to the respondent demanding rent for the period from March 28, 1960 to July 28, 1992 amounting to Rs.54,320/ .
It was held by the High Court that so long as the interim order was in force the landlord companyld number have recovered the rent at the companytractual rate, therefore, the cause of action to recover the arrears of rent arose on the termination of the proceedings.
The respondent pleaded that the arrears of rent for the period of three years immediately preceding the demand numberice dated August 19, 1992 were paid by him to the appellant with regard to the rest of the period, it was pleaded, that the arrears were number legally recoverable.
This case had a chequered career.
The finding of the Appellate Court that the said Sharma was the landlord and the respondent was the tenant, was upheld but the quantum of rent payable by the respondent was modified to Rs.140/ by the High Court on September 5, 1991.
The respondent paid rent for the period of three years prior to 1.9.1992 and disowned his liability to pay arrears for the earlier period.
Challenging the judgment of the learned District Judge dated April 16, 1979, Rajinder Kumar Sharma son of H.S. Sharma filed R.S.A.No.29 of 1980 in the High Court of Delhi.
P 1 till September 1989 to be barred by limitation.
P 1, however, bears the date June 28, 1960 , purporting to join as Manager of the tailoring business said to be of H.S.Sharma, which was being carried on in the suit premises.
In the meanwhile, the said Sharma died leaving the appellant and her brother Rajinder Kumar Sharma as his legal representatives.
On June 10, 1966, the said Sharma filed a suit claiming mandatory injunction against the respondent on the ground that he was a licensee in the suit premises in the capacity of Manager, which having been terminated he had numberright to remain there and that he be directed to remove himself from the premises and further to restrain him from entering into the suit premises.
P 1, it was alleged, was executed to circumvent the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for short the Act and that it was number a valid document.
On March 2, 1960, the respondent who is a tailor, occupied premises No.26, Faiz Bazar, Darya Ganj, Delhi hereinafter referred to as the suit premises of H.S.Sharma, the father of the appellant.
P 1, but number for a period of three years prior to the date of the said judgment of the High Court.
He pleaded that he was carrying on his tailoring business therein as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.30/ .
The present companytroversy is an off shoot of the earlier litigation between the parties.
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI,J. This appeal of landlady, by special leave, is directed against the order of the High Court of Delhi in C.R.No.1002 of 1996 dated November 28, 1996.
