Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The executing Court decided the second issue against the tenant and dismisssed the application.
(2) An appeal was taken to the learned Additional District Judge, but without success, the Appellate Court agreeing with the order made by the Court of first instance."

(3) On revision, under section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, No. 33 of 1952, the learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed very lengthy and elaborate arguments, practically treating this revision as original ejectment proceedings, ignoring that it was a revision from an order made in execution proceedings. I may at the very outset, and before ntoicing the arguments urged at the bar, point out that the older dated 31st July 1957 was made more than three years after the proceedings for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent had been initialed in April, 1954. In May. 1954, an application was made for getting a plan of the premises prepared through Court be cause it was averred that the tenant was nto allowing the same to be prepared. In June, 1954, an application was made under section 13(5) of the Delhi Rent Act for an order directing the tenant to pay all arrears of rent and costs of the suit, This application was nto contested and an order was made requiring the defendant to deposit the arears of rent within 15 days from the date of each subsequent month on the 15th of the month. On 24th February, 1958, the tenant applied under Order 47, Rule 1, and section 151 Civil Procedure Code for the review of the order dated 14th June, 1954 requiring the tenant to deposit all the arrears of rent. In this application, it was averred that the tenant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Obviously, review was declined on 28th March, 1956 by Shri K. K. Gujral, Subordinate Judge, but an appeal was preferred against that order and on 28 th January, 1957, the learned first Additional District Judge, Delhi, dismissed the same as being incompetent because the learned counsel for the appellant had, to use the exact words, "frankly and very lightly conceded..... and has nto pressed his appeal." It was, however, added that the order under appeal and the order dismissing the appeal would nto, in any way, bar or adversely affect the tenant's right, if any, to challenge the validity of the original order in the trial Court in proceedings for striking out his defense. On 14th June, 1954, issues had been framed in the original proceedings It appears that in the dispute regarding deposit of rent, an enquiry was held by the Court and evidence was recorded from June, 1956 to June, 1957 when a written application was made on 31st July, 1957 signed by btoh the parties and their Advocates. I may here reproduce the relevant portion of that application : - "THEparties have compromised the suit on the following terms and conditions :- 1. That a decree for ejectment on the ground of bon fide necessity for the residence of the plaintiff and/or members of his family and for Rs 1,704/. Ob account at arrears of rent and costs be passed in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, but the decree for ejectment will nto be executable till the 31st December, 1900. 2. That the defendant has deposited the amount of rent claimed by the plaintiff and also the arrears of rent up to the end of June, 1957 and costs. The said amounts be paid to the plaintiff. The excess amount if any will be adjusted towards inture rent. 3. That the defendant shall pay the future rent from 1st July, 1957 month by month, rent for each month being payable by the 15th of the following month. In case of default in payment of the rent for two consecutive months, the decree for ejectment will become executable at once. 4. That the defendant shall remove the unauthorised superstructure i.e. mtoor garages and servant quarters and urinel outside the main building erected by him in the premises in his occupation and to which objection has been raised by the Land and Development Office within one year of this decree i.e. by 31st July, 1958 In case the defendant fails to remove the unauthorised superstructures by the stipulated date the plaintiff shall be entitled to execute the decree for ejectment against the defendant at once. 5. That the acceptance of rent by the plaintiff during the period allowed for execution of the decree would nto create any fresh tenancy in favor of the defendant."