D.P Wadhwa, J.— This is tenant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5 March, 1991 of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiff landlord for possession. The property in question is Flat No. B on the Ninth Floor in Atma Ram House, 1, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, with a floor area of 941.52 sq. ft. The plaintiff is now respondent before us. He filed a suit for possession under the ordinary civil law stating that the defendant-appellant was his tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/- and, thus, outside the purview of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. He said this rate of rent was agreed w.e.f 1st April, 1988. The plaintiff also said that he had served a notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant and thereafter filed the suit which, as noted above, was decreed with costs.
2. It is unnecessary for us to refer to all the issues as in this appeal two principal points were raised by Mr. Rawal who appeared for the appellant. He said the notice terminating the tenancy was not served on the defendant and further that the Delhi Rent Control Act was in fact applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. He said that it was admitted case of the parties that the premises were let out to the defendant on 18 June, 1974 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,655/-. The lease deed clearly stipulated that any increase in house-tax etc. shall be borne and payable by the defendant as the lessee. He said on the representation of the plaintiff that house-tax had since increased the rent was increased by a sum of Rs. 500/- and w.e.f April 1982 rent was being paid at the rate of Rs. 3.155/-. Again on the similar representation of the plaintiff the rent was increased to Rs. 8,750/- per month w.e.f 1 April, 1985. The last increase in rent happened on the similar representation of the plaintiff and w.e.f 1 April, 1986 the rent was increased to Rs. 4,000/- per month. It can at once be seen from the increase in rent that it has no correlation with any increase of the house tax. In fact it was found that the house-tax had in fact decreased. Mr. Rawal said the tenant had no means to find out if the house-tax had increased and the solely depended on the representation of the plaintiff-landlord. This to our mind cannot be so. We are, thus, of the opinion that the learned Additional District Judge was right in holding that rent was not increased in terms of the lease deed between the parties which provided any increase in payment of house-tax by the tenant-defendant. Section 7 of the Delhi Rent Control Act to which renference was made and so far as it is applicable provided that house-tax etc. is to be payable by the landlord. This Section to our mind is not applicable in the present case as the rent in the present case has not been increased because of any increase in house-tax but because of agreement between the parties. Once it is held that the rent is Rs. 4,000/- per month the premises fall outside the purview of provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act and a civil suit is maintainable. Mr. Rawal then said that the validity of the amendment Act though upheld by this Court is pending challenge in the Supreme Court. But that certainly cannot be a reason for keeping the appeal pending when law has been laid down by this Court itself upholding the amendment to the Delhi Rent Control Act. Coming to the question of notice terminating the tenancy we find that notice was properly addressed to the tenant at his address by registered A.D post. A notice was also addressed to Capt. K.C Saigal. Proprietor of the defendant, at his residential premises. There is no dispute that the addresses as given of the defendant were not correct. Mr. Rawal says acknowledgement card which was returned does not bear the signature of Capt. K.C Saigal himself. The fact, however, remains that the notice was addressed at a proper address at the office of the defendant. If somebody received the registered A.D notice on behalf of the defendant, it cannot be said that the defendant has not been properly served. Otherwise there is no challenge to the validity of the notice as such. This contention of Mr. Rawal also fails. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
3. During the course of hearing it was pointed out that the whole of the building in which the premises in question are situate has been lying sealed because of a certain fire incident that occured there in March 1990. Mr. Rawal said that the defendant-tenant is not presently in possession of the premises and he cannot enter therein unless permitted by the authorities and after premises are declared safe. Mr. Nayyar who appeared for the Caveator-land-lord said that rent has not been paid to him as from March 1989, but that is not the issue in the present appeal.
Appeal dismissed.