JUDGMENT
M.L. Jain, J.
(1) The respondent Kampa Wati filed an eviction petition against the appellant Chander Kishore Sharma under clause (a) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the ground of non-payment of rent. It appears that the tenant by 13-4-1976 had paid arrears of rent by money order to the tune of Rs. 495.00 and had further deposited rent at various dates in the court to the tune of Rs. 2090.00 by 31-1-1979.
(2) The learned Additional Controller, however, made an order on 31-5-1979 under Section 15(1) of the said Act which order was later on modified in appeal by the Rent Control Tribunal on 16-10-1979. The order read with the modification amounts to this that the tenant was required to pay within a month all the arrears of rent that were due by 31-5-1979 after the adjustment of the amount already paid as aforesaid. As a matter of fact, after excluding the amount permitted to be adjusted, there were no arrears to be paid on the date of the order of the Additional Controller made on 31-5-1979. Yet an execution application for eviction was made on the ground that the order of the Controller was not complied with inasmuch as the rent for the month of May. 1979 was not paid. This argument was rejected by the learned Controller and the learned Rent Control Tribunal holding that the rent for the month of May, 1979 had not by then fallen due. There, I think, in the view taken by them, they were absolutely correct. A new and strange argument was then raised before the Tribunal that upon a scanning of the challans of the past payments, it was found that there was no payment of rent relatable to the month of April, 1978. Considering this to be a lapse, the learned Tribunal reversed the judgment of the Additional Controller and directed eviction of the tenant. Hence, this appeal.
(3) On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it seems quite obvious that the learned Tribunal has definitely fallen into an error of law which is substantial in nature. While considering the payment made of the arrears, one has to consider the total amount paid as one lump sum even if paid monthwise or otherwise and one is not required or permitted to split and relate the payment monthwise. The argument built up before the Tribunal was, therefore, misconceived and should have been rejected. After considering the whole matter, I find that there were no arrears due to be paid on 31-5-197). Hence, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained.
(4) The appeal is consequently accepted and the impugned order of the Tribunal of 27-8-1932 is set aside. No costs.