Landlord-tenant denial does not oust rent control jurisdiction; unchallenged striking out of defence attains finality.

Denial of a landlord-tenant relationship does not by itself oust the jurisdiction of Rent Control authorities under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958; the Controller may incidentally determine that relationship to proceed under the statute, and Section 15 orders for rent deposit and default consequences remain operative on that footing. The unchallenged appellate order striking out the defence had attained finality because no second appeal was taken, so the same controversy could not be reopened by challenging jurisdiction in the later appeal. The challenge therefore failed, and the eviction order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether denial of the landlord-tenant relationship ousted the jurisdiction of the Rent Control authorities under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and whether orders made under Section 15 of that Act could stand against the appellant. (ii) Whether the unchallenged appellate order striking out the defence had become final and barred further challenge to the proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether denial of the landlord-tenant relationship ousted the jurisdiction of the Rent Control authorities under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and whether orders made under Section 15 of that Act could stand against the appellant.

Analysis: The Act proceeds on the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and is intended to regulate rents and evictions within that relationship. A mere denial of tenancy does not automatically divest the statutory authorities of jurisdiction. Where eviction proceedings are instituted and the alleged tenant resists them by disputing the relationship, the Controller may incidentally decide whether such relationship exists for the purpose of proceeding under the Act. Orders made under Section 15, including directions for deposit of rent and consequences for default, are part of that statutory scheme and operate on the footing that the person proceeded against is a tenant for purposes of the Act.

Conclusion: The denial of tenancy did not oust jurisdiction, and the statutory orders under Section 15 were valid as against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the unchallenged appellate order striking out the defence had become final and barred further challenge to the proceedings.

Analysis: The order of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appeal against the striking out of defence was not taken in second appeal to the High Court. That order therefore attained finality between the parties. Once that order became final, the appellant could not reopen the same controversy by questioning the jurisdiction of the authorities in the present appeal. The question of condonation of a one-day delay was treated as immaterial in view of the Tribunal's decision on the merits as well.

Conclusion: The order striking out the defence had become final, and the challenge to it could not be entertained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the jurisdictional challenge and on finality of the earlier unappealed order, leaving the eviction order undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A denial of the landlord-tenant relationship does not by itself exclude the jurisdiction of rent control authorities; such authorities may determine that relationship incidentally for the purpose of proceedings under the statute, and an unchallenged order within that statutory process attains finality between the parties.

---