N.N. Goswami, J.
(1) This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22-5-1974 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The petition of eviction had been filed on 26-10-1971 against the appellant for non-payment of arrears of rent inspire of notice of demand stating inter alias that no rent had been paid by the appellant since 1-9-1970. It also alleged that notice dated 24-8-1971 was served upon the appellant on 25-6-1971 whereby its tenancy was also determined with effect from 30th September, 1971. The permission of the Competent Authority. Slum Areas was also stated to have been obtained before filing the petition for ejectment.
(2) In the written statement filed by the appellant the relationship of landlord and tenant and the agreed rate of rent were admitted. Regarding the allegations about the service of notice it was stated that receipt of notice mentioned in the corresponding para of the petition for eviction was admitted, but it was contended that the same was invalid and illegal and that the respondents were not entitled to terminate the tenancy of the appellant. Regarding the arrears it was stated that an area of 1260 sq. ft. in the basement and on the ground floor was let out to him but the respondents had forcibly deprived the appellant from the use of the office accommodation and had reduced the area under his tenancy. After hearing the parties, the trial court passed an order under Section 15(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on 17th January, 1972 calling upon the appellant to deposit arrears of rent and future rents at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month though the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 1,260 per month. The appellant filed an appeal against this order which the Tribunal dismissed by its order dated 17th March, 1972 and gave the appellant one month's time to deposit the arrears of rent. Appellant failed to deposit and respondent filed an application for striking out the defense of the appellant. The trial court by its order dated 15-1-1972 struck out the defense of the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal against the order striking out the defense, but the appeal was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Thereafter, the trial court after recording the evidence passed an order of ejectment dated 13-12-1972. The appellant filed the first appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which also failed and thereforee, the present second appeal has been filed by the appellant.
(3) The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before me was that the very letting out of the premises by the respondent was illegal. It was submitted that the premises in dispute had been completed on 13-11-69 and the completion certificate was obtained on 31-3-1971 and the premises in dispute could not be let out for occupation to the appellant without obtaining the completion certificate of the premises in dispute. Reliance was placed on Section 346 of the Municipal Corporation Act. It is significant to note that the appellant had not raised any such plea in the written statement and the point was also not argued before the Rent Controller : Further, it is stated in the petition that the premises in dispute were completed on 13-11-1969 and the remaining building was completed and the completion certificate was granted on 31-3-1971. There is nothing to show that the respondent had no permission or authority to let out the premises which had been completed as far as back 13-11-1969. Furthermore, the letting out by itself cannot be void as the penalties for letting out the premises without obtaining the completion certificate are provided in the Act itself and there is no material on record to show whether any such penalties were imposed or not in the absence of any evidence in respect of the same. In this view, the submission of the appellant has no merits and has to be rejected.
(4) The only other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the notice by which the tenancy was determined has not been proved by the respondent and as such the very basis of the application for ejectment disappears. Exhibit A-7 is the copy of the notice sent to the respondent. The respondent had filed Exhibit A7. Along with the petition for ejectment besides filing Exhibit A. 8 and Exhibit A. 9 as postal receipt and Exhibit A. 10 and Exhibit A. 11 as A/D receipts. The appellant specifically admitted the receipt of the notice although he denies its validity. It was nowhere contended that the original was not signed by the Advocate who had sent the same or copy filed was not a correct copy of the one received by the appellant. The appellant did not choose to file the original notice received by him. It was contended that it was necessary for the respondent to say that the copy of the notice was a carbon copy of the original and by merely saying that it was a copy of the notice sent onus of proving was not discharged. Reliance was placed on judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of reported as 1950 Allahabad 696, but the judgment is distinguishable on the mere ground that this case is not under the Delhi Rent Control Act. Under the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Controller has to follow the practice and procedure of Court of Small Causes and the learned Rent Control Tribunal was right in holding that in those circumstances while recording the evidence of a witness the court may not note down each and every word of what the witness had stated and has only to make synopsis of the evidence. As I have said a copy old the notice was enclosed with the petition and the appellant had admitted the receipt of the notice but had denied its validity. The appellant has not been able to show in what manner the notice was invalid and in fact nothing has been pleaded in the written statement. Accordingly, I hold that the notice was duly proved and there is nothing to hold that the same was invalid in any manner.
(5) No other contention was raised by the counsel for the appellant. The appeal has no merits which is dismissed with costs.