Naresh Jain v. Dharamveer Singh

judgment is set out below:

"1. The appellant herein is a tenant of the premises situated at Sagarpur in Delhi, whereas the respondent is the landlord. The landlord let out the premises to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- per month. Subsequently, the landlord terminated the tenancy by giving notice under Section 106 of

the Transfer of Property Act. The landlord thereafter brought a suit for ejectment of the tenant as well as for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit. Before the Trial Court the tenant filed a written statement wherein one of the pleas taken was that the premises which was let out to him was covered by Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and as such the suit is not maintainable. The Trial Court held that the premises was not covered by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Consequently, the suit was decreed. First Appeal was preferred to the learned District Judge, which was dismissed. Thereafter the appellant filed a Second Appeal before the High Court and the same was also dismissed. It is in this way the appellant is before us in appeal.

¶2The only argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that since the premises of which the appellant is a tenant is covered by Delhi Rent Control Act and therefore, the suit filed by the landlord in Civil Court was not maintainable and decree passed therein is void ab initio. In order to appreciate the argument, it is worthwhile to extract the relevant provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as well as Delhi Rent Control Act, which are as follows:

"Section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act:

(a) the Corporation with the previous approval of the Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that any portion of the rural areas shall cease to be included therein and upon the issue of such notification that portion shall be included in and form part of the urban areas;

Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act:

It extends to the areas included within the limits of the New Delhi Municipal Committee and the Delhi Cantonment Board and to such urban areas within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as are specified in the First Schedule:

Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend this Act or any provision thereof, to any other urban area included within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or exclude any area from the operation of this Act or any provision thereof.

¶3Subsequently, by a notification dated

24.10.1994 issued under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the rural area falling under Sagarpur where the property in dispute is situate was included within the urban area of Delhi Municipal Corporation. It is on the strength of this notification, learned Counsel urged that once the area has been included as urban area within the Delhi Municipal Corporation ipso facto, the Delhi Rent Control Act shall be applicable the argument is totally misconceived. Even if any new area is included within the urban area of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, a further notification is required to be issued under proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Unless the area is so specified in the Schedule by a notification, the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act cannot be made applicable to that area. It is admitted that no notification has yet been issued under the

proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act specifying Sagarpur area within the Schedule of the Act. In absence of such a notification, the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act cannot be enforced to the area, namely, Sagarpur."

¶12Even in the decision in Sayada Begum (supra), the Court has clearly come to the conclusion that the notification concerning urbanisation of the area under Section 507 of the DMC Act, and the notification under Section 1(2) of the DRC Act have not been produced, and the said decision clearly relates to this very area which is in question. Thus, the question of law raised by the Defendants does not arise in the present appeals."

¶22All these cases also related to the Village Ghonda Chauhan Bangar and the tenant in the present case cannot be extended any benefit which is different than the parties in the said case.

¶23In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present second appeal. No substantial question of law arises. It is made clear that the landlord is entitled to seek market rent from the time of passing of the order dated 23rd January, 2019, at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month. If any amounts are lying deposited, the same would be liable to be released in favour of the landlord.

¶24The appeal is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGE NOVEMBER 17, 2021/mw/AK

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 17th November, 2021 + RSA 24/2021 & CM APPLs. 8269/2021, 8270/2021, 8271/2021 NARESH JAIN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Piyush Gupta & Mr.Siddharth Sharma, Advocates versus DHARAMVEER SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ankit Singh & Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocates (M: 9899923389) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present second appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment dated 17th March, 2020, passed by the by the ld. ADJ-1, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter, "First Appellate Court") in RCA DJ No. 31/2019. Vide the said order, the appeal against the decree dated 23rd January, 2019 passed by the ld. ASCJ, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter, "Trial Court"), in Suit No. 340/2018, has been dismissed. 3. The Trial Court on 23rd January, 2019 decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff/landlord/Respondent (hereinafter, "landlord") under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, and had directed possession to be handed over to the landlord. The operative portion of the order of the Trial Court reads as under: "Arguments considered. As per para 3 of reply of the defendant, he is willing to pay the rent but the plaintiff is not receiving the rent. In reply to legal notice dated 14.06.2018 it is admitted that the defendant paid rent @ Rs.700/- to be plaintiff in good faith. In his reply to legal notice dated 30.11.2009 the defendant has also admitted his tenancy. The plaintiff on the other has filed several rent receipts to show Dharambir as the tenant and the payment made towards rent. Perusal of record shows that the previous case under Rent Control Act was dismissed on 24.10.2017 withdrawn as the suit was not maintainable, property being commercial in nature. Firstly, the defendant has himself admitted that the tenancy was determined by way of notice dated 28.04.2003 by the plaintiff whereby he/defendant was required to handover vacant and peaceful possession. Secondly, the admission of the defendant that he is a tenant and paid Rs.700/- monthly rent to the plaintiff is then categorical. The only dispute left to be sorted is whether the claim of the plaintiff to seek damages @ Rs.30,000/- per month from defendant is justified/rightful. The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed in his favour. The defendant is directed to handover the possession of the suit property i.e. Shop measuring 10-1/2 X 22 bearing No.S-33/7, Braham Puri Main Road, Gali No. 24, Delhi-110053 to the plaintiff. List on 07.03.2019 for admission denial of documents and framing of issues." 4. The First Appellate Court has also upheld these findings of the Trial Court and has held that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, "the DRC Act"), would not apply to the area in question. 5. The brief background is that the landlord had rented out the property bearing Shop No. S-33/7, Brahampuri Main Road, Gali No. 24, Delhi- 110053, to the Defendant/tenant/Appellant (hereinafter, "tenant"). After his retirement from service, the landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(C) of the DRC Act claiming bonafide need, however the same was dismissed by the ARC. Thereafter, upon termination of the tenancy, the landlord had approached the Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act seeking possession of the premises. In the said petition before the Rent Controller, the tenant had taken a stand that the petition under the DRC Act is not maintainable as the Village Ghonda Chauhan Bangar, also known as Brahampuri, Main Road, Delhi was not notified as covered under the DRC Act. The said plea taken in the affidavit of the tenant reads as under: "That instant eviction petition under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is not maintainable because as per notification dated 28.5.1966/3rd June 1966, the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is not applicable in the area of Brahampur, Main Road, Delhi