Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sh. Saad vs Smt. Sayda Begum on 3 February, 2015

          Sh. G. N. Pandey,Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi.


                            IN THE COURT OF SH. G. N. PANDEY 
                        ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE­02 (NE)
                          KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI


                                                                           MCA No. 10/14 
                                                       Case I.D. Number : 02402C0400452014 

         IN THE MATTER OF :­



         Sh. Saad
         S/o Late Sh. Shoaib Ahmed 
         R/o A­16/5, Gali No. 16, Rajender
         Prasad Marg, Chauhan Bangar,
         Delhi­110053                                                         ........  Appellant 
                 

                                                  VERSUS

           Smt. Sayda Begum
           W/o Sh. Latafat Ali
           R/o A­46/8, Gali No. 1
          Jafrabad, Delhi­110053                                              ........Respondent

Date of Institution of Appeal : 11.12.2014 Argument heard on : 03.02.2015 Date of Judgment/Order : 03.02.2015 Decision : Appeal is dismissed MCA No. 10/14 1 /8 Saad Vs. Sayda Begum Sh. G. N. Pandey,Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi.

J U D G M E N T­

1. The present appeal is preferred against order dated 27.10.2014 passed by Ld. ACJ­cum­ ARC­cum­CCJ ( NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the application U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by the plaintiff/respondent has been allowed and the suit qua the relief of possession has been decreed.

(The parties are referred herein as per their status before the Ld. Trial Court i.e. plaintiff and defendant respectively. )

2. The brief and relevant facts in the background of which the present suit was filed by the respondent who is the plaintiff in the original suit are as follows:­ (I) A suit for recovery of possession and damages was filed by the plaintiff, wherein it is submitted that the plaintiff is the owner and landlady of the built­up property bearing No. A­16/5, Gali No. 6, ( Old Gali No. 1) Rajender Prasad Marg, Chauhan Bangar, Delhi­ 110053 ( hereinafter referred to as the ' suit property'). The defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff in a room along with varandah and toilet, situated at the ground floor of the suit premises. The monthly rate of rent is Rs. 80/­ excluding all other charges. The tenancy is month to month, starting from the first day of day of each English Calender month and ending on the last day of the same month.

(II) Vide Legal Notice dated 23.03.2013, sent through Speed Post on 23.03.2013, the plaintiff called upon the tenant/defendant to vacate the suit property within fifteen days of the service of the legal notice. It is submitted that despite service of the legal notice, the defendant has not handed over the possession of the property to the plaintiff.

MCA No. 10/14 2 /8

Saad Vs. Sayda Begum Sh. G. N. Pandey,Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. (III) Written Statement was filed by the defendant, wherein it is submitted that the plaintiff is seeking relief of possession of the suit property without paying the proper court fee. The plaintiff has not issued the legal notice to the defendant, seeking possession of the suit property. It is admitted that the plaintiff is the owner and landlady of the suit property. It is admitted that the plaintiff is the owner and landlady of the suit property. No rent agreement was signed between the parties. Para No. 3 of the plaint regarding the monthly tenancy is admitted. The same has not been specifically denied. It is denied that the defendant received the Notice dated 23.03.2013. It is further stated that the tenanted premises is covered under the DRC Act.

3. Vide impugned order dated 27.10.2014, Ld. Trial Judge has allowed the application U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by the plaintiff and suit was decreed qua the relief of possession.

4. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal on the ground that the impugned order is bad in law and the Ld. Counsel for the defendant was not granted opportunity to address the arguments and the principles of natural justice were not followed. It is further argued that this suit of the plaintiff is barred in view of Section 50 of DRC Act and the Ld. Trial Judge failed to appreciate this fact; the impugned order was passed without application of judicial mind. The appellant therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.

5. Respondent did not wish to file reply the appeal and argued that this appeal is without ground and filed to harass the respondent/plaintiff.

6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions. I have also gone through the trial Court record and considered the MCA No. 10/14 3 /8 Saad Vs. Sayda Begum Sh. G. N. Pandey,Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. relevant provisions of law.

7. This appeal appears to have been filed mainly on the grounds that­ (1) Principles of Natural Justice was not followed as the defendant was not granted opportunity to address arguments.

(2) The tenancy of the defendant was not terminated in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and (3) The suit of the plaintiff was barred in view of Section 50 of the DRC Act and the suit cannot be decreed on the basis of application U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC.

8. Taking the first objection of the appellant regarding non grant of opportunity to address the arguments, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant appears to have no substance. After going through the trial court record, it is observed that several opportunities have been granted to the appellant to produce the materials that the suit is barred by the DRC Act and regarding the applicability of the DRC Act to the suit property but despite grant of more than five opportunities nothing was done. The trial court lastly granted opportunity to the defendant to file written submissions in support of contentions too but of no avail. In my considered view, the trial court has no option, therefore except to pass the order on the application U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC. The judgment relied by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant reported as 2013 (2) Civil Court Cases 484 (SC) is neither applicable nor helpful in the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. It is vehemently argued by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the tenancy of the defendant was not terminated in view Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and there is no admission in this respect. This aspect of the argument appears to be dealt by the Ld. Trial Court by the impugned order while relying MCA No. 10/14 4 /8 Saad Vs. Sayda Begum Sh. G. N. Pandey,Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. upon the judgments reported as 183 (2011) DLT 712 (DSC) titled Jeevan Diesels and Electrical Ltd. Vs. M/S Jasbir Singh Chadha ( HUF) & Anr. as well as Nopani Investment ( Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Santokh Singh (HUF); 146 (2008) DLT 217 ( SC). This court also finds itself in consonance with the findings of the Ld. Trial Judge regarding the termination of tenancy of the defendant and there is no merit and substance in the argument by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant in this respect.

10. The main argument of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant/appellant remained that the suit of the plaintiff was barred U/S 50 of the DRC Act and the Ld. Trial Judge was wrong in passing the decree of possession on the basis of admission U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RSA No. 397/14 in support of contentions.

The relevant provision i.e. Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is reproduced herein for reference:­

6. Judgment on admissions­ (1) 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 may think fit, having regard to such admissions.

(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub­rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in MCA No. 10/14 5 /8 Saad Vs. Sayda Begum Sh. G. N. Pandey,Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.

11. The only question remains to be adjudicated as to whether the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent is barred by Section 50 of the DRC Act or whether provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act are applicable to the suit property or not ?

As noted, the landlord­tenant relationship between the parties is not in dispute along with the rate of rent qua the suit property. The only dispute raised is that suit property is situated in Village­ Chauhan Bangar which is part and parcel of Village­ Ghonda and the provisions of the DRC Act are attracted as the same was urbanized. It is also argued that the trial court has no jurisdiction to pass the decree for possession in view of applicability of Delhi Rent Control Act.

12. In view of Section 1 (2), the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ( hereinafter called the " Act") extend to the areas included within the limits of the New Delhi Municipal Committee and the Delhi Contemn Board and to such urban areas within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as are specified in the first schedule. It is further provided that the Central Government, may, by notification 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.

In view of the aforesaid provision of Section 1 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, the simple issuance of a notification U/S 507 (a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act to declare any particular area as urbanized itself is not sufficient for the applicability of the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act and another notification U/S 1 (2) of the DRC Act is necessary for enforcing the provisions of MCA No. 10/14 6 /8 Saad Vs. Sayda Begum Sh. G. N. Pandey,Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. DRC Act and create bar of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court qua the area in question. This court is further guided in view of the judgments titled Bhawani Shankar Vs. Bakshish Singh; RSA No. 287/2013 decided on 03.01.2014 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Raj Pal Singh Vs. Deen Dayal Kapil; 207 (2014) DLT 651 in this respect.

The contention of the defendant/appellant as the suit property being situated in village­ Ghonda appears to have no substance. The suit property is situated in village­ Ghonda Chauhan Bangar which has different revenue division and is separate from the village­ Ghonda contended to be urbanized by the appellant. The appellant further failed to produce any notification under the Delhi Rent Control Act with respect to the suit property, the contention of the appellant regarding the suit of the plaintiff being barred by the DRC Act appears to have no substance.It is a matter of record that only a Notification under Section 507 of the DMC Act has been issued with regard to the area where the suit property is situated, however, the same is not sufficient. Without any specific Notification under the DRC Act, mere urbanization of an area will not make the DRC Act applicable to it. Mitter Sein Jain Versus Shakuntala Devi (2000) 9 Supreme Court Cases 720, wherein it was held that 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 the proviso to sub­section (2) of Section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Ld. Trial Judge has discussed and reached to the conclusion that village­ Ghonda and Ghonda Chauhan Bangar are separate revenue estate/ villages on the basis of material on record which appears to be true and correct appreciation of the facts. The impugned order does not suffers from illegality or MCA No. 10/14 7 /8 Saad Vs. Sayda Begum Sh. G. N. Pandey,Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. infirmity nor warrants for any interference.

13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 27.10.2014 of the Trial Court in respect of the passing of the decree of possession on the basis of application U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC of the respondent is upheld. The present appeal is dismissed by leaving both the parties to bear their own costs. However, the appellant is given two months time to vacate the suit property himself failing which the possession can be recovered by the respondent through execution proceedings thereafter.

14. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

15. TCR be sent back to the concerned Court along with a copy of this judgment.

16. Appeal file be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced in open Court on this 03rd day of February, 2015 G. N. Pandey Addl. District Judge­02 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

MCA No. 10/14 8 /8 Saad Vs. Sayda Begum