Delhi District Court
Ramesh Kumar vs Manju Rawat on 21 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. KAPIL KUMAR, ADJ-01, NORTH
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
RCA DJ No. 13/2023
CNR No. DLNE01-001513-2023
In the matter of :-
Sh. Ramesh Kumar
s/o Sh. Bhole Shankar
r/o H. No. 45, Ground Floor,
Block-A, Gali no. 1, Harizan Basti,
Sadatpur, Delhi-110094 ....Appellant
Versus
Smt. Manju Rawat
w/o Sh. Trilok Singh
r/o H. No. 86, D-Block, Gali no. 1,
Dayalpur, North-East,
SLF Ved Vihar,
Delhi-110094 ..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 31.05.2023
Arguments heard on : 21.12.2023
Date of Judgment : 21.12.2023
Digitally signed
by KAPIL
KAPIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2023.12.21
14:37:55 +0530
RCA DJ No. 13/2023 page No. 1/13
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the appeal filed by the appellant Sh. Ramesh Kumar against the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2023 passed by Ld. SCJ, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, in the civil suit no.480/2021 titled as "Smt. Manju Rawat Vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar" vide which the appellant was directed to hand over the physical possession of the property bearing no.45, Block-A, Gali no.1, Harijan Basti, Sadatpur, Delhi-94, measuring 65 square yards (hereinafter as suit property) to the respondent.
2. For the sake of the convenience, the parties to the appeal will be referred as per the original suit filed. The appellant herein will be referred as defendant while the respondent will be referred as plaintiff.
Facts.
3. The facts of the present matter required to be mentioned while disposing off the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed the suit inter-alia praying for a decree of possession by ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises on the allegations that the defendant was inducted as tenant for a period of 11 months vide rent agreement dated 01.08.2015 at the monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- per month which was to be renewed from time to time.
4. In the year 2019, the defendant herein filed the suit bearing no.56/19 titled as "Ramesh Kumar Vs. Manju Rawat & Ors" for permanent injunction thereby praying the relief that plaintiff herein be restrained from dispossessing him from the suit property, wherein the plaintiff gave a statement that to the effect that the defendant shall not be evicted from the suit property RCA DJ No. 13/2023 page No. 2/13 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.12.21 14:38:02 +0530 without following due procedure of law. The defendant/appellant withdrawn that suit considering the statement of plaintiff/ respondent.
5. Thereafter an eviction petition was filed under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act by the plaintiff herein but the same was dismissed on 06.04.2021 by Ld. SCJ, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, stating that the petition was not maintainable as the area in question where suit property is situated has no applicability of Delhi Rent Control Act.
6. The defendant filed the written statement wherein the relationship between the landlord and tenant was admitted but he stated that he paid Rs.1,00,000/- as security to the plaintiff which has not been returned to him.
Grounds of Appeal
7. The present appeal has been filed on the following grounds:
a) The judgment and decree dated 21.04.2023 was passed without considering the fact that the suit in itself was barred by virtue of provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act as the rate of rent was Rs 3500/- only (as per written submissions filed on behalf of appellant);
b) The judgment and decree dated 21.04.2023 was passed without considering the fact that the defendant has given Rs 1 Lac as security to the plaintiff and this fact gives the right to the defendant to remain in the possession of the suit property till the security deposited be refunded and on this ground only the decree is liable to be set aside;
c) The preliminary decree was passed against the defendant when there was no application under Order XII RCA DJ No. 13/2023 page No. 3/13 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2023.12.21 14:38:08 +0530 Rule 6 CPC filed by the plaintiff.
Arguments on behalf of Appellant.
8. Ld. Counsel for appellant/defendant vehemently argued that the decree dated 21.04.2023 under Order XII rule 6 CPC was passed in haste by the Ld. Trial court as there was not even application under Order XII rule 6 CPC on record. It was also argued that by virtue of security of Rs.1,00,000/- which was given to the plaintiff by the defendant, a right was accrued in favor of defendant to continue in the possession of the property in question. It was argued that the decree in question is liable to be set aside.
9. The written arguments were also filed on 18.12.2023 wherein it is stated that the Trial Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction as the suit of the plaintiff was barred under Delhi Rent Control Act.
Arguments on behalf of respondent.
10. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff/respondent argued that the decree in question is absolutely correct in the eyes of law as the same was passed as per the parameters required for passing the decree on admissions under Order XII rule 6 CPC. It is submitted that there was no question of security while the decree was passed and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. It was argued that suit was not barred under Delhi Rent Control Act. It was argued that the plaintiff initially filed a petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act for the eviction of the defendant but the same was opposed by the Ld Counsel for defendant on the ground that the Delhi Rent Control Act is not applicable to the area of Sadatpur where the suit property is situated and for this reason the eviction petition moved under RCA DJ No. 13/2023 page No. 4/13 Digitally signed KAPIL by KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR 14:38:14 Date: 2023.12.21 +0530 Section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed. It was argued vehemently that at this stage it does not lie with the appellant/defendant to take the objection of the subject matter jurisdiction of the Ld Trial Court.
12. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and the record has been perused carefully. Written submissions considered.
13. Following are the points of determination in the present appeal in view of the pleadings and the arguments advanced:-
a) Whether the suit was barred by virtue of Delhi Rent Control Act?
b) Whether the application was mandatory to be moved by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC?
c) Whether the alleged security deposit by the defendant to the plaintiff gives him the right to remain in the suit property even after termination of tenancy? and
d) Whether there were specific admissions by the defendant, on the basis of which judgment on admission was justified?
Jurisdiction.
14. The first poser which this court requires to be dealt with as to whether the Ld. Trial Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was argued that the rent is less than Rs.3,500/- per month and as such the defendant is a protected tenant by the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act and cannot be evicted except on the ground mentioned in section 14 thereof. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that he has filed the eviction petition before the Ld. Additional Rent Controller but the same was dismissed on the ground of being not maintainable since the area in which RCA DJ No. 13/2023 page No. 5/13 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2023.12.21 14:38:19 +0530 the property in question is not covered under Delhi Rent Control Act. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff took this court to the order dated 06.04.2021 passed by Ld. Additional Rent controller in the petition titled as "Manju Rawat Vs. Ramesh Kumar", RC ARC no.55/19.
15. It is necessary to refer the order dated 06.04.2021 passed by Ld Rent Controller in the eviction petition filed by the plaintiff against the defendant:-
The order reads as under:-
"Matter is at the stage of arguments on the maintainability of the present petition. Arguments heard.
Ld Counsel for the respondent submitted that the suit property is situated in the area of Sadatpur, Delhi which falls in the sub-division of Karawal Nagar that is not covered under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is further argued that the latest notification dated 20.11.2019 filed by the petitioner pertains to Section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 which though notify Sadatpur as urbanized area but no separate notification under Section 1 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act has been issued containing the Sadatpur area so the present petition is not maintainable before this court.
On the other hand, Ld Counsel for the petitioner argued that no separate notification under DRC Act is required for notifying the area to be covered under DRC Act once the area has been declared as urban section 507 of DMC Act. It is further argued that notification dated 20.11.2019 issued under 507 of DMC Act cover the Sadatpur are which seize to be the rural area and has been deemed as urban area. It is argued of Ld Counsel that Delhi Rent Control Act came into existence in the year 1958 so the areas notified by Delhi Corporation Act 1957 are automatically covered under DRC Act as per section 1 (2). Hence the present petition is maintainable before this court. In support of his argument Ld Counsel relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble RCA DJ No. 13/2023 page No. 6/13 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2023.12.21 14:38:25 +0530 High Court of Delhi titled as Sayada Begum vs Qaisir Sad Khan RSA 56/2017 decided on 05.03.2018. It is settled position of law that simple issuing of notification U/s 507 (a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act to declare any particular are as urbanized, it is not sufficient and another notification U/s 1 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act is also necessary qua any particular area for enforcing the provisions of DRC Act to enable the maintainability of the petition under DRC Act. The judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner in Sayada Begum Vs. Qaisar Dad Khan categorically held the aforesaid position of law. The notification dated 20.11.2019 referred by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner reflects the area of Sadatpur as urbanized and there is no notification issued by the competent authority with respect to applicability of Delhi Rent Control Act to the area of Sadatpur falling under the sub division of Karawal Nagar. The notification issued from time to time by the Central Government regarding applicability of DRC Act, 1958, to the particular areas does not reflect anywhere the area of Sadatpur to be covered under DRC Act, 1958.
In view of the discussion above, no ambiguity exists with respect to non applicability of Delhi Control Act in the area of Sadatpur, hence the present petition under DRC Act cannot be said to be maintainable. Petition stands dismissed accordingly. File be consigned to record room."
16. The order dated 06.04.2021 passed by Ld. ARC is not in challenge before this Court. The order dated 06.04.2021 attained finality.
17. However, to avoid any controversy and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the issue of jurisdiction is required to be dealt at this stage, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Sabir Hussain (Dead) through LRs and & Ors vs Sayed Mohd Hassan (Dead) through LRs & Ors Civil RCA DJ No. 13/2023 page No. 7/13 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.12.21 14:38:30 +0530 Appeal no. 5049/2009 decided on 06.11.2023 as per which this court being the first appellate court is required to record its findings dealing with all issues of law as well as fact and with the evidence, oral as well as documentary, led by the parties, while deciding the present appeal.
18. The area where property in question is situated is Sadatpur, Delhi which falls in the sub-division of Karawal Nagar. Admittedly, there is no separate notification under Section 1 clause 2 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for the area where the property in question is situated. It is trite that mere notification under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act to declare any particular area as urbanized is not sufficient for the protection to the tenant under Delhi Rent Control Act. Another notification under Section 1 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act is also necessary qua any particular area for enforcing the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act to enable the tenant to claim protection under Delhi Rent Control Act. On this aspect, support could be drawn from judgments titled as Smt Bharama Devi vs Smt Krishna Devi, 65 (1997) DLT 836 and Mitter Sain Jain vs Shakuntla Devi, (2000) 9SCC 720. In the absence of the notification under Section 1 (2) of DRC Act, the tenant cannot claim protection and as such the Ld. Trial Court was justified in entertaining the suit.
19. Further, the notification dated 25.09.2020 issued by Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs relied upon by the Ld Counsel for Appellant by filing the written submissions is of no rescue to the case of the appellant since this notification is not under Section 1(2) of Delhi Control Rent Act as vide this notification the areas of the villages which were declared RCA DJ No. 13/2023 page No. 8/13 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.12.21 14:38:35 +0530 urbanized vide notification dated 20.11.2019 published in Delhi Gazette, Extraordinary, Part-IV dated 21.11.2019, which were vested in the Central Government on their urbanization will at be at the disposal of Delhi Development Authority for the purpose of development and maintenance. This notification nowhere declares as to the extension of the applicability of Delhi Rent Control Act over the villages which were urbanized vide notification dated 20.11.2019. In these circumstances, in absence of the specific notification under Delhi Rent Control Act, the area where the suit property is situated i.e. area of Sadatpur has not applicability of Delhi Rent Control Act and accordingly the appellant/defendant cannot claim protection under Delhi Rent Control Act.
20. Moreover, it is to be worth mentioning here that the above- referred order of Ld ARC reveals that in the petition for eviction filed by the plaintiff under Section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act, it was the defendant only who took the objection that the petition is not maintainable as the Delhi Rent Control Act is not applicable to the area Sadatpur where the suit property is situated and on his objection the petition was dismissed. Now, when the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction in civil court then it does not lie in the mouth of the defendant to take the objection that the Delhi Rent Control Act is applicable to the area of Sadatpur. The defendant cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.
21. In view of the above-discussion and considering the fact that the order dated 06.04.2021 passed by Ld ARC in the eviction petition filed by the plaintiff against the defendant attained finality, it can be safely said that the Trial Court had the jurisdiction to try the present suit since the suit is not barred by RCA DJ No. 13/2023 page No. 9/13 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.12.21 14:38:40 +0530 the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act. Requirement of application by the plaintiff.
22. The application under Order XII rule 6 CPC is not necessary for a Court for passing a judgment on admissions. Reliance on this aspect could be placed on judgment titled as "
M/s Palace Restaurant Vs. Through Authorized PPA no. 36/2010" decided on 08.12.2010 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the requirement, prior to the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment, 1977, of filing an application under Order XII rule 6 CPC stands waived and under the amended provisions of order XII rule 6 CPC, the court on its own motion and without an application by a party can proceed to pass a decree on admission. In these circumstances, the Trial Court was within rights to pass a judgment on admission without application. There was no illegality on the part of the Trial Court on this aspect.
Security given by the defendant.
23. The argument that the defendant had given Rs.1,00,000/- as security to the plaintiff will not change the capacity of defendant from the tenant to the owner or of the landlord. Merely giving of security will not change the status of defendant. The security amount can be claimed by the defendant from the plaintiff by filing a separate civil suit but on the ground that security amount was given, the defendant cannot continue to occupy the premises when the tenancy is already terminated. Reliance on this aspect could be placed upon judgment titled as Deepak Jain Vs. Kamal Garg decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 05.10.2016.
Whether the decree on admissions was mandated.
RCA DJ No. 13/2023 page No. 10/13
Digitally
signed by
KAPIL KAPIL
Date:
KUMAR
KUMAR 2023.12.21
14:38:45
+0530
24. It is necessary to refer the provision of under Order XII Rule 6 for ready reference. Order XII rule 6 reads as under
"Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it is may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under subrules (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment pronounced.
25. Order XII rule 6 CPC speaks about judgment on admissions. Admissions on which judgment can be claimed must be clear, unambiguous and unconditional. The admissions must be clear and unambiguous, open and such admission must be either of the entire claim made in the suit or for a part for which decree can be passed separately.
26. An "admission" is a statement of facts which waives or dispenses with the production of evidence by conceding that the fact asserted by the opponent is true. Admissions are admitted because the conduct of a party to a proceeding, in respect to the matter in dispute, whether by acts, speech, or writing, which is clearly inconsistent with the truth of his contention, is a fact relevant to the issue. Admission should be clear cut and accurate specific statement of that very person in his own words. An admission constitutes a substantive piece of evidence in the case RCA DJ No. 13/2023 page No. 11/13 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2023.12.21 14:38:51 +0530 and, for that reason, can be relied upon for proving the truth of the facts incorporated therein. An admission has the effect of shifting the onus of proving to the contrary on the party against whom it is produced, with the result that it casts an imperative duty on such party to explain it. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, it is presumed to be true.
27. Now it is to be considered as to whether there were justified grounds for the trial court for passing the judgment on admission for the eviction of defendant in the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment titled as Payal vision Ltd. Vs. Radhika Chaudhary decided on 20.09.2012 held that in a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions of Rent Control Act, all that is required to be established by the plaintiff/landlord is the existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of tenancy either by lapse of time or by notice served by the landlord under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and so long as these two aspects are not in dispute, the court can pass a decree under Order XII rule 6 CPC. The same was the observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment titled as "Deepak Jain Vs. Kamal Garg" decided on 05.10.2016.
28. In the case in hand, there is no dispute as to the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. The receipt of notice terminating the tenancy is also nowhere in dispute. Moreover, the service of summons of the suit for eviction of the tenant is also a deemed notice for the eviction of tenant. In view of the above discussion, the tenancy of the defendant is not protected under Delhi Rent Control Act. Thus, all the requirements are fulfilled Digitally RCA DJ No. 13/2023 page No. 12/13 signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2023.12.21 14:38:56 +0530 for passing a decree of eviction of tenant, in view of the judgment of Payal Vision (Supra) .
29. The judgment titled as Hari Steels & General Industries Ltd vs Daljeet Singh & Anr SLP © no. 31176/2018 decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 24.04.2019 relied upon by the appellant is in fact going against the case of the appellant since it was held in that judgment that admissions must be categorical and unconditional on the basis of which the powers under Order XII Rule 6 CPC can be invoked. In the case in hand the admissions are specific as to the relationship of landlord and tenant and the termination of tenancy. The case in hand is the apt case for invoking powers under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Conclusion
30. In view of the above-discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment dated 21.04.2023 passed by Ld. Trial Court whereby defendant was directed to vacate the property in question and to hand over the possession of the same to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. In view of the same, the application under Order 41 rule 5 CPC, pending on record, for the stay of judgment/decree dated 21.04.2023 also stands dismissed.
31. Appeal file be sent to Record Room and TCR be returned forthwith. Copy of this Order be also sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
Digitally signedKAPIL by KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.12.21 14:39:02 +0530 Typed to the direct dictation and (Kapil Kumar) announced in the open court ADJ-01, North-East on this 21.12.2023 KKD Courts, Delhi RCA DJ No. 13/2023 page No. 13/13