Dr Abhay Sadashiv Bapat v. Jai Pal Tayal

ORDER "/»

04.09.2015 CM. No. 18204/2015 Exemptionallowed, subjectto all just exceptions. The applicationstands disposed of. Cav 927/2015 Learned counsel for the respondent/caveatorhas appeared and the caveat stands discharged. RSA 325/2015 & CM. Nos.18203/2015.18205/2015

¶1Thepresentsecondappealis directedagainstthejudgmentand decree dated30.04.2015passedby the learnedADJ-02;PatialaHouseCourts,New Delhi in RCA No.1558/2013preferredby the appellant/defendant.By the said first appeal, the appellant/defendantsoughtto assailthe judgmentand decree dated 07.11.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge-01 in C.S. No.119/2013 partiallydecreeingthe suit ofthe respondent/plaintiffunder Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. y Signed By:AMULYA that the digital file and l file have been compared the data is as per the physical file ature Not Verified

¶2The respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit praying for a decree of ejectment, damages and mesne profits. The suit was premised on the i' relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as landlord and tenant respectively. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was a tenant in the suit property. The tenancy of the defendant had been terminated vide notice dated 27.04.2013.

¶3In the written statement, the defendant/appellant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and receipt of the notice. The defendant raised the objection that the suit is barred under section 50 of the Delhi Rent ' Control Act, 1958. In view of the aforesaid admissions, the plaintiff moved the application under Order 12 Rule 6 seeking a partial decree for ejectment. ' The objectionof the defendant^appellantwith regardto the applicabilityof the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was rejected by the Trial Court on the I premise that the suit property was not covered by the provisions of the said • Act. In this regard, reliance is placed by the Trial Court on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mitter Sen Jain v. Shakuntala Devi, (2000) 9 SCC ^

720.

¶4The Trial Court held that as per section 1(2) of the Delhi Rent Control W Act, the applicabilityof the saidAct is to the limits of New DelhiMunicipal I Committee and Delhi Cantonment Board and to such other urban-areas within the limits of MCD as are specified in the first schedule. The proviso states that the Central Govt. may extend the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act to any other urban area by notification. The Trial Court observedthat Dabri and Sagarpurwere declaredas urban areas in 1994 and I the defendant had not brought on record any notification of the Central Govt. bywhichthe provisionsofthe DelhiRent ControlAct had beenmade applicableto Dabri and Sagarpur. In view ofthe admissionsmade by the defendant,the partialdecreefor ejectmentwas passed. The FirstAppellate Courthas concurredwiththe saidfindingand dismissedthe appealpreferred by the appellant.

¶5The submissionof Counselfor the appellantis that even if it were to be acceptedthat the tenancyin respectofthe suit propertyis not protected under the Delhi Rent ControlAct, the Delhi (UrbanAreas) TenancyRelief Act, 1961 govern the field, and the appellant/tenantwas entitled to protectionunderthe saidAct. I may note that no such avermentwas raised by the appellantbefore the Trial Court. Even before the First Appellate Court, it appearsthat the said argumentwas not raised in the appeal itself In any event, I have heard. Counsel for the appellant on his aforesaid submission.

¶6Section 1(2) of the Delhi (Urban Areas) Tenancy ReliefAct lays downthe areasto whichthe saidActextends,whichreads: "(2) It extends to the areas in the Union TerritoryofDelhi which, immediatelybefore the f day ofNovember, 1956were included in a municipalityor in a notified area under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, or in a cantonmentundertheprovisionsofthe CantonmentsAct, 1924, but shall not apply to the areas owned by the Central Governmentor the Delhi DevelopmentAuthority constituted undertheDelhiDevelopmentAct, 1957orany localauthority".

¶7Therefore, it would be seen that the said Act extended to those areas in the Union Territoryof Delhi which, immediatelybefore the 1"' day of November1956, were includedin a municipality,or in a notifiedareaunder the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, or in a cantonment under the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924. Admittedly, the suit property-which falls in Sagarpur was not included in a municipality, or in a notified area under the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, or in a cantonment under the provisions of Cantonments Act, immediately before 01.11.1956. The said sub-section goes on to specifically exclude from the operation of the said areas owned by the Central Govt. or the Delhi DevelopmentAuthority constituted under the Delhi Development Act, or any local authority. The Delhi (UrbanAreas) TenancyRelief Act, therefore,has no applicationto the said property falling in Sagarpur.

¶8Reliance placed on the definition clause of "Land" contained in the Punjab TenancyAct is, therefore,of no avail. The appellantseems to be reelingunderthe misconceptionthat the suit propertynecessarilyshouldbe governed-eitherby the Delhi Rent ControlAct, or by some other law for providingprotectionto tenants. However,it is clearthat the suit property-since it is not governedby the Delhi Rent ControlAct or the Delhi (Urban Areas) TenancyReliefAct, would be governedby the Transferof Property Act in the matter of relationship of landlord and tenant.

¶9I find absolutelyno merit in the present appeal and no substantial questionoflaw arisesfor considerationby this Court. Dismissed. VIPIN SANGHI, J SEPTEMBER 04, 2015 sr

$-17. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 325/2015 DRABHAYSADASHIVBAPAT Appellant Through: Mr. S Prasad,Advocate versus JAIPALTAYAL Respondent Through: Mr. PradeepVerma,Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI