Delhi District Court
Neeraj Kumar vs Munni Devi on 6 April, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER
ACJARC (WEST), THC, DELHI
D. R. No. 209/12
Date of Order: 06.04.2013
NEERAJ KUMAR ... PETITIONER
Versus
MUNNI DEVI ... RESPONDENT
Order on objections filed by the respondent
1. Present application under section 27 of Delhi Rent Control Act was filed by the petitioner on 06.11.12 and notice of the said application was issued to the respondent vide order dated 07.12.12. The objections were filed by respondent on 19.01.13 and the main objection which has been taken up by the respondent is that D. R. Act do not apply to the tenanted premises as it falls within the Khasra No. 82/17 in the revenue estate of village Hastsal, Delhi and that the said Khasra number has not been notified by the Central Government in notification dated 28.12.1959 which was issued in exercise of the powers under clause (a) of Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
2. The objections were taken up for hearing today and it was pointed out by the Ld. counsel for respondent that two other applications U/s 44 and U/s 45 of DRC Act have already been dismissed by this Court on the ground that DRC Act do not apply to the tenanted premises.
3. Petitioner failed to appear on the last date of hearing and again failed to appear today till 4.00 p.m. despite repeated calls since morning hence the Court proceeded to decide the issue as to whether DRC Act is applicable to D. R. No.209/12 Page 1 of 7 the tenanted premises or not?
4. In order to decide this issue it is necessary to go through Section 1 sub section (2) of this Act which is reproduced as under:
'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:
Provide 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.' From subsection (2) of Section 1 of DRC Act it is evident that the DRC Act extends to the areas which fall within the limits of NDMC and the Delhi Cantonment Board and to such Urban areas within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as were specified in the First Schedule as on the date of commencement of the Act.
5. Perusal of notification issued by Central Government dated 28.12.1959 shows that in the said notification some Khasra numbers of village Hastsal were urbanized in West Zone. However, Khasra no. 82/17 does not find mention anywhere in those Khasra numbers which have been mentioned and so urbanized by the said notification. The petitioner has, despite being given opportunity, has not been able to file any other notification in order to prove that Khasra No. 82/17 was also declared urban area by Central Government vide any other notification.
6. It is the duty of the petitioner who has come to this court for claiming a relief under the provisions of DRC Act to establish that the premises with respect to which relief is sought is covered within the areas to which DRC Act applies. Upon filing of the application under consideration, it was incumbent D. R. No.209/12 Page 2 of 7 upon the petitioner to file Gazette Notification under the proviso of Section (1) (2) of DRC Act, to show that the area in which the tenanted premises is situated is covered by DRC Act. The petitioner failed to file any such notification till date.
7. In judgment titled Mitter Sen Jain V. Shakuntala Devi, (2000) 9 SCC 720 it has been held as under:
"2. The 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;
Subsection (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.
3. Subsequently, by a notification dated 24.10.1994 issued under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the rural area falling under Sagarpur when 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 D. R. No.209/12 Page 3 of 7 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 Subsection (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 Subsection (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." (emphasis supplied)
8. In the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been observed that the provisions of DRC Act cannot be enforced to the area of Sagarpur as there is no notification to include the said area within the ambit of DRC Act as per proviso to Subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It may be noted that the area of Sagarpur is also mentioned in the 14th Schedule at Article no. 131 and stated to be covered under South Delhi Municipal Corporation. The situation of the area falling in the Sagarpur and the area falling in Hastsal is the same, therefore the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the present case in absence of any specific notification as per proviso to Subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act which may include the area of Hastsal within the ambit of DRC Act.
9. The petitioner has failed to show any such notification or other document issued by the Central Government from which it could be inferred that the provisions of the DRC Act have been made applicable to the area falling within Hastsal and consequently to the tenanted premises.
10. It may be pointed out here that it has been held in following judgments that the notification under the proviso to Section 1(2) of DRC Act is sine qua D. R. No.209/12 Page 4 of 7 non for the applicability of Delhi Rent Control Act to any area to which DMC Act has been extended by a notification U/s 507 of DMC Act.
1. Md. Yamin Vs. Saira, RFA No. 42/2011 dated 10.02.2011 of Delhi High Court.
2. Mahinder Pal Jain Vs. Jai Bhagwan, (1998) 71 DLT 766 of Delhi High Court
3. Shri Sarvesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. Shri Ratan Lal, RSA No. 38687/2006 dated 30.03.2011 of Delhi High Court (Judgment of Mitter Sen supra was relied upon in this case).
4. Sh. Ajab Singh Vs. Shri Mukesh Chand Gupta, (2012) 186 DLT 548 of Delhi High Court (Judgment of Mitter Sen supra was relied upon in this case).
5. M/s. Aakriti Carpet (P) Ltd. Vs. Naresh Kumar, RFA No. 171/2009 dated 16.12.2011 of Delhi High Court.
11. In view of the aforesaid judgments and discussion, objection as regards applicability of DRC Act is allowed and present petition is rejected as DRC Act does not apply to the premises with respect to which relief is sought as the petitioner has not been able to show any notification in this regard despite being given opportunity.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court On this 06th day of April, 2013 (S.P.S. Laler) ACJ/ARC(West) Tis Hazari, Delhi D. R. No.209/12 Page 5 of 7 D. R. No. 209/12 06.04.2013 Pr. None for petitioner.
Counsel for respondent.
It is brought to my notice that on the last date of hearing in the first sentence of order dated 23.03.2013, inadvertently it has been mentioned that 'none is appeared on behalf of respondent' though son of respondent was present hence same is corrected today itself and the said sentence be read as 'none is appeared on behalf of petitioner'.
This order shall also form part of the said order i.e. 23.03.2013. Arguments heard on objections by Ld. counsel for respondent. Petitioner be awaited. Put up at 12.30 p.m. ACJ/ARC(W)06.04.2013 12.30 p.m. Pr. None for petitioner.
Counsel for respondent.
Petitioner be awaited. Put up at 2.00 p.m.
ACJ/ARC(W)06.04.2013
D. R. No.209/12 Page 6 of 7
2.00 p.m.
Pr. None for petitioner.
Counsel for respondent.
None is appeared on behalf of petitioner despite repeated calls since
morning. Hence put up the matter at 4.00 p.m. for orders on objection.
ACJ/ARC(W)06.04.2013
At 4.00 p.m.
Pr. None.
Vide separate order, objection as regards applicability of DRC Act is allowed and present petition is rejected as DRC Act does not apply to the premises with respect to which relief is sought as the petitioner has not been able to show any notification in this regard despite being given opportunity.
File be consigned to record room.
(S. P. S. LALER) ACJ/ARC(W)06.04.2013 D. R. No.209/12 Page 7 of 7