Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Courts vs Savitri Devi on 16 May, 2011

                                              //1//

IN   THE   COURT  OF  SH.  PRITAM  SINGH,  ARC  (CENTRAL) TIS  HAZARI 
                                                    COURTS, DELHI.
                                            E­53/09
16.05.2011
Sh. Ashok Kumar and another 
Vs.
Sh. B.L.Bajaj

ORDER

By this order I shall dispose of an application u/o 1 rule 10 r/w section 151 CPC filed by the applicants, Sh. Jagdish Akrania and Sh. Raghubeer Kumar Sharma. The brief facts as stated in the application are that the applicants are owner of the property in question as they have purchased it vide registered sale deed dated 15.12.2009 from Sh. Aashish Singh who purchased it from Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma vide sale deed dated 20.03.2009. The petitioners are well aware about this fact but they have not stated the same before this court. It is prayed that the applicants may be impleaded as parties in the present proceedings.

2. As the case was fixed for consideration regarding the benefit u/s 14 (2) of DRC Act to the respondent, therefore, the arguments on the maintainability of this application heard from the Ld. counsel of the applicants. Record perused and considered.

//2//

3. Ld. counsel for the applicants submitted that only an order u/s 15 (1) of DRC Act was passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court on 22.11.2005 and no eviction order has been passed against the respondent, therefore, the application is maintainable. Ld. counsel further submitted that the order passed u/s 15 (1) of DRC Act is only an interim order whereby the respondent was directed to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs. 800/­ per month w.e.f April, 1999 upto the preceding tenancy months and the respondent was further directed to pay or deposit the rent at the same rate by 15th of each succeeding month. Ld. counsel further submitted that an eviction order yet to be passed, therefore presence of applicants as parties is necessary.

4. Ld. counsel for applicant relied upon the following rulings :­

(i) Harish Kumar Vs. Savitri Devi, 2010 VI AD (Delhi) 321.

(ii) B.R.Mehta Vs. Atma Devi, 1989 (37) DLT 416.\

(iii) Globetech Engineers Vs. Ajay Chadha, 2002 (6) AD (Delhi) 672.

5. Perusal of records reveals that on 22.11.2005 the Ld. Predecessor of this court has passed a judgment in the present petition. By said judgment the petition u/s 14 (1) (b), (c) and (j) of DRC Act was dismissed. It was held in para no. 8 of said judgment while considering the grounds u/s 14 (1) //3//

(a) of DRC Act "since PW­1 has not been cross examined by the respondent and the fact that the respondent has not led any evidence in support of his claim, therefore, the petitioners have proved the relationship of landlord/tenant, existence of arrears of rent, service of demand notice and failure of the tenant to pay or tender whole of the arrears of rent. Accordingly, an order u/s 15 (1) of the DRC Act is hereby passed directing the respondent to pay or deposit the rent @ Rs. 800/­ per month w.e.f April, 1999 up to the preceding tenancy month. The respondent is also directed to pay of deposit the rent at this rate in future by 15 th of each succeeding month". It has been specifically stated in the jimini order dated 22.11.2005 "Vide separate detailed order of today, the petition u/s 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act is allowed and an order u/s 15 (1) of DRC Act is passed directing the respondent to pay or deposit the rent @ Rs. 800/­ per month with effect April, 1999 upto the preceding tenancy month. So far as petition u/s 14 (1)

(b), (c) and (j) of DRC Act is concerned the same is dismissed on all the three grounds. Put up for compliance on 30.01.2006".

6. From both the judgment and jimini order dated 22.11.2005 it is clear that the petition u/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act was allowed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent, however, an order u/s 15 (1) of DRC Act was passed because earlier order u/s 15 (1) of DRC Act was not passed.

//4// Perusal of records further reveals that on 14.03.2002 the order u/s 15 (1) of DRC Act was deferred till the question of relationship is determined between the parties. Therefore, the submission of the Ld. counsel for the applicants that on 22.11.2005 only an interim order was passed and no judgment was passed has no substance. It is well settled law that whenever a petition u/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act for the first default on non­payment of rent is allowed, an opportunity is given to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent and the rent which occured during the pendency of the petition, if the said amounts of rent are not deposited by the tenant as directed by the court u/s 15 (1) of DRC Act the benefit u/s 14 (2) of DRC Act for first default is not given to the tenant. The matter is pending just to consider whether the respondent has complied or not the order passed u/s 15 (1) of DRC Act and accordingly whether the respondent is entitled for the benefit u/s 14 (2) of DRC Act. The Ld. Predecessor of this court while passing order u/s 15 (1) of DRC Act on 22.11.2005 has granted more than one month time to the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent as the matter was fixed for compliance on 30.01.2006. As the judgment has already been passed, therefore, no party can be added or deleted at this stage. If the applicants have any grievance against the judgment dated 22.11.2005 they should challenge it in appeal. It is well settled law that the Rent Controller/Additional Rent Controller has no power to review his order. It //5// has been held in Nand Kishore Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta, 2009 (1) RCR 296 that "No power of review has been conferred on the Additional Rent Controller or on the Additional Rent Control Tribunal under Delhi Rent Control Act and Rent Controller or Rent Control Tribunal cannot exercise this power". The rulings relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the applicants are not dealing with the issue in question that when a petition u/s 14 (1)

(a) of DRC Act is allowed and matter is kept for compliance of order u/s 15 (1) of DRC Act and to consider the benefit u/s 14 (2) of DRC Act to the tenant whether any third party can be impleaded at this stage. Hence, the rulings relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the applicant are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

7. In view of the above discussion I do not find any merit in the application U/o 1 rule 10 r/w section 151 CPC. Hence the same is dismissed.


(Announced in the open court 
on 16/05/2011)                                                             (Pritam Singh)
                                                                     ARC/Central/Delhi