1988 (10) TMI 277 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-payment of rent.
2. Dispute over the existence of landlord-tenant relationship.
3. Admissibility of unregistered lease deeds.
4. Validity of eviction petitions filed by an unauthorized person.
5. Striking out the defense under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-payment of Rent:
The respondent filed two eviction petitions against the appellant for non-payment of rent. The ground floor was rented at Rs. 2400 per month, and the basement at Rs. 1000 per month, later increased to Rs. 1200. Rent arrears were due from January 1, 1984, and despite notices of demand dated March 12, 1985, the appellant did not pay.

2. Dispute over the Existence of Landlord-Tenant Relationship:
The appellant contended he was not the tenant, claiming the premises were rented to M/s. Wadbrow India (P) Ltd. and M/s. Spectra India. The respondent countered, stating the appellant was the tenant, and M/s. Spectra India was not a legal entity as it was a sole proprietorship of the appellant.

3. Admissibility of Unregistered Lease Deeds:
The appellant argued that the lease deeds, not executed on proper stamp paper and unregistered, could not be considered. However, the court held that under Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered lease deed could be looked into for collateral purposes, such as determining the nature of possession. Citing various precedents, it was established that the unregistered lease deeds could be used to show the appellant's possession as a tenant.

4. Validity of Eviction Petitions Filed by an Unauthorized Person:
The appellant argued that the eviction petitions were invalid as they were signed by the respondent's father without a valid power of attorney. The court noted that the respondent's father had acted as the attorney in letting out the premises and the appellant, having accepted the lease, could not dispute the father's authority. The court found that the power of attorney produced during the appeal, duly authenticated and ratifying the father's actions, validated the eviction petitions.

5. Striking Out the Defense under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act:
The appellant's defense was struck out for not depositing the rent as ordered under Section 15(1). Despite multiple opportunities and extensions, the appellant failed to comply. The court held that the appellant's contumacious conduct justified striking out the defense. The Rent Control Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals was upheld, as the appellant did not tender the arrears of rent within the stipulated time after receiving the notice of demand.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both appeals, affirming the eviction orders. The appellant's failure to comply with the rent deposit orders and the validation of the eviction petitions by the authenticated power of attorney were key factors in the decision. The appellant was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 500 in each appeal.