Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P.K. Bahri

JUDGMENT

P.K. Bahri, J.

(1) This judgment shall dispose of both the appeals brought under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Two eviction petitions were brought by the respondent against the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent. The complete ground floor of house No. E-36, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi, was stated to have been let out to the appellant at the rental of Rs. 2400 per mouth. Initially the letting took place vide lease agreement dated July Ii, 1980, and the same was renewed vide agreement dated July 1, 1982. The arrears of rent was stated to be due with effect from January 1, 1984. which were allegedly not paid by the appellant in spite of service of notice of demand dated March 12, 1985. In the second eviction petition, it was pleaded that the complete basement of the same money stood let out to the appellant a the rental of Rs. 1,000 per month vide lease deed dated October 1. 1982, with a stipulation that the rent was to be increased to Rs. 1,200 per month with effect from January 1, 1983, and it was pleaded that arrears of rent were due with effect from January 1, 1984, which were neither paid nor tendered in spite of service of notice of demand dated March 12, 1985. The ground of misuse covered by clause (c) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was also pleaded but that ground was negatived and no longer survives for decision in these appeals.

(2) In the first case, the appellant pleaded that he, in fact, was not the tenant on the ground floor of the s.:id building and the premises were actually let out to M/s. Wadbrow India (P) Limped and thus, the eviction petition against him was not maintainable. On merits, the plea taken was that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,000 per month and there were no arrears payable as alleged in the petition. The receipt of the notice of demand was also denied. Similarly, in the second petition, the appellant took the plea that in fact, M/s. Spectra India is the tenant and he took the plea that the rate of rent is Rs. 1,000 per month and no arrears of rent, as claimed in the petition, were due. In replications, the respondent controverter the pleas of the appellant and reiterated her own pleas and in the other case she pleaded that M/s. Spectra India is not a legal entity as the appellant is the proprietor of the said firm. It was controverter in respect of the first petition that M/s. Wadbrow India (P) Ltd. is the tenant. In both the cases separate orders under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act were made on October 18, 1986. The appellant filed appeals against those orders but ultimately he withdrew those appeals which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide orders of the Rent Control Tribunal dated November 24, 1986. However, the Tribunal granted time till December 31, 1986, for complying with the order made under Section 15(1). The appellant did not deposit any rent whatsoever in compliance with the said orders made under Section 15(7). Applications under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act were moved for striking out the defense of the appellant in both the cases. In spite of the fact that adjournments were sought for filing the reply to the said applications but no reply was filed. On January 5, 1987, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant and defense of the appellant in both the cases was struck out as the appellant had not deposited even single paisa in compliance with the orders made under Section 15(1). After recording the statement of M. S. Chaturvedi, father of the respondent who also claimed to be attorney of the respondent the eviction orders were passed against the appellant which were challenged by filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal wh........