Delhi District Court
Smt. Saroj Puri vs Smt. Minakshi Sharma on 9 August, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU VEDWAN, CIVIL JUDGE
CENTRAL01, DELHI
Suit No: 743/09
1. Smt. Saroj Puri
W/o Late Sh. Vinod Puri
2. Sh. Sharad Puri
S/o Late Sh. Vindo Puri
3. Dr. Shallu Puri
D/o Late Sh. Vinod Puri
All C/o 15D, Kamla Nagar
Delhi110007. ...........Plaintiffs
VERSUS
1. Smt. Minakshi Sharma
W/o Sh. Ram Kamal
R/o 2344, 2nd Floor,Hudson Lane
Delhi.
2. Smt. Nalini Sharma
W/o Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o 116/1/1, 4th Floor,
Madhu Bhawan, M. G. Road
Central Avenue, Calcutta
3. Sh. R. K. Sharma,
S/o Not known
R/o 2344, 2nd Floor,Hudson Lane
Delhi. ..............Defendants
Suit No: 743/09 Page No: 1/7
2
ORDER
Vide this separate order I shall dispose off application u/o 7 Rule 10 & 11 r.w Section 151 CPC on behalf of the defendants no. 1 & 3.
1. It is submitted by the defendants in their application u/o 7 Rule 10 & 11 CPC that plaintiff averred in para 1 of the present suit that the predecessor ininterest of the plaintiff namely Sh. Vinod Puri was carrying on business of the firm M/s. Raj Kumar Singh Puri in the tenancy premises i.e the entire ground floor of the property bearing no. 4393, Tulsi Das Street, 4 Ansari Road, Darya Ganj. New Delhi as a lawful tenant, at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,125/ p.m.
2. It is further submitted by the defendants in their application that in para 3 of the plaint it is again mentioned that on the death of said Sh. Vindo Puri all his legal representative became lawful tenants in respect of the tenancy premises in question.
3. It is further submitted by the defendants in the application that it is admitted case of the plaintiff in the suit that there exist a relationship of landlord and tenant between defendants and plaintiff. It is further admitted fact that the last rent paid by the plaintiff in AprilMay 2006 was Rs. 1,125/.
Suit No: 743/09 Page No: 2/7 3
4. It is further submitted by the defendants in the application that the plaintiffs have wrongly evoked the jurisdiction of this Ld.Court when this Ld. Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit knowing fully well that section 3 (c) of Delhi Rent Control Act provides that the Delhi rent control Act is applicable to those premises, whether residential or not, whose monthly rent do not exceeds three thousand and five hundred rupees and in the present suit rent is 1125/ p.m., so , it is covered by Delhi Rent Control Act.
5. It is further submitted by the defendants that Section 50 of the Delhi rent Control Act further bares the jurisdiction of the civil courts in respect of matters concerning rent and eviction of the tenant. It is further submitted by the defendants in their said application that the suit premises is governed by the Rent Act and therefor is under the purview of the act therefore would be governed by the provisions of the Rent Act and this Ld. Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to try this suit or to pass any decree and if at all any decree is passed the same cannot be executed..
6. It is further submitted by the defendants in their said application that under Order 22 Rule 3 itself provides that "provided that where it is alleged (compromise) by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has arrived at, the court shall decide the Suit No: 743/09 Page No: 3/7 4 question" the petitioner never made such an assertion before the Rent Controller, but preferred to file a suit before this Hon'ble Court.
7. It is submitted by the plaintiff in their reply in preliminary objections to the said application that the present application as framed and filed is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the defendants are guilty of intentional and deliberate contempt/disobedience of the restraint order dated 06.11.09 passed by this Hon'ble Court.
8. It is further submitted by the plaintiff in reply to the said application that the application even otherwise is misuse and abuse of process of law and merits dismissal. It is submitted that the plaintiffs by way of the present suit are seeking relief of injunction from defendants from forcible dispossession from tenancy premises in occupation of the plaintiffs. As such the provisions of Delhi rent Control Act, in particular para 50 thereof do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The application being most malafide merits dismissal with exemplary cost.
9. In reply on merits plaintiff denied all the allegations made by defendant no. 1&3 in their application u/o 7 Rule 10 & 11 CPC.
10. As per Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act, "Jurisdiction of Suit No: 743/09 Page No: 4/7 5 the civil courts barred in respect of certain matters.
(i) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil court shall entertain any suit or proceedings in so far as it relates to the fixation of standard rent in relation to any premises to which this act applies or to eviction of any tenant therefrom or to any other matter which the controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be take by the Controller under this act shall be granted by any civil court or other authority.
(ii) If, immediately before the commencement of this Act, there is any suit or proceeding pending in any Civil Court for the eviction of any tenant from any premises to which this Act applies and the construction of which has been completed after the 1st day of June, 1951, but before the 9th day of June, 1955 such suit or proceeding shall, on commencement, abate.
(iii) If, in pursuance of any decree or order made by a court, any tenant has been evicted after the 16th day of August, 1958, from any premises to which this act applies and the construction of which has been completed after the 1st day of June, 1951, but before the 9th day of June, 1955, then notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by such Suit No: 743/09 Page No: 5/7 6 evicted tenant within six months from the date of eviction, direct the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the premises or to pay him such compensation as the Controller thinks fit.
(iv) Nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed as preventing a civil court from entertaining any suit or proceedings for the decision of any question of title to any premises to which this act applies or any question as to the person or persons entitle to receive the rent of such premises."
According to this section, normally the exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court is not to be readily inferred. One has to advert to the language of an enactment and find out what it intends in this regard, thus the exclusion must be by express terms or by the use of such terms as would necessarily lead to the interference of exclusion. In this respect the jurisdiction of civil court or other authority is explicitly excluded by section 50 (1) with respect to matters covered by it.
11. Submissions heard. Clarification sought. Relevant application reply perused very carefully. Authorities filed by the parties i.e " Om Prakash Jain v Sh. Hans Raj & Ors 1994 (30) (DRJ) High Court of Delhi, Annick Chaymotty @ Devyani v Prem Mohini Mehra 2002 (61) DRJ 511 High Court of Delhi & Surjeet Kaur Tuli v Union of India 2002 (61) DRJ 562 High Court of Delhi, also perused very carefully and same do not Suit No: 743/09 Page No: 6/7 7 apply to present facts and circumstances of the case.
12. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the defendant submits that it is a case where rent is below standard rent, so it is governed by the Delhi rent Control Act. While Ld. counsel for the plaintiff contends that relief sought here is injunction and not regarding the rent or eviction, so is triable by the Civil Court. The claim or question in the suit is that whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants, their employees assigns, agents, attorneys or any other person acting on their behalf from forcible dispossessing the plaintiffs from whole or any part of the tenancy premises in question i.e the entire ground floor of the property bearing no. 4393, Gali Tulsi Das, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi.,that is without following the due process of law. Though, it is a matter of fact that rent is below the standard rent but as the relief claimed here is injunction and which is neither expressly nor impliedly barred under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, so, the application of defendant no. 1&3 u/o 7 Rule 10 & 11 CPC is hereby dismissed.
(Announced in the open court) (Ms. Manu Vedwan)
09.08.2011 Civil Judge/Central01
09.08.2011
Suit No: 743/09 Page No: 7/7
8
Suit No: 743/09 Page No: 8/7
9
Suit No: 743/09 Page No: 9/7