Delhi District Court
Sh. Rahul Ahuja vs Smt. Amrit Kaur on 17 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SURESH KUMAR GUPTA,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 03 (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
RCA No.39/2010
ID No. : 02402C0289312010
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Rahul Ahuja,
S/o Sh. P.K. Ahuja,
Shop in premises bearing No.185A,
Ground Floor, South Anarkali,
Som Bazar, Chander Nagar,
Delhi110051
..............Appellant / Defendant
Versus
Smt. Amrit Kaur,
W/o Sh. Narender Singh,
R/o House No.15,
New Gobindpura,
Delhi
...............Respondent / Plaintiff
Date of institution : 16.10.2010
Date of arguments heard : 14.02.2011
Date of judgment : 17.02.2011
RCA No.39/2010 Page 1 of 5
J U D G M E N T
1. The present appeal arises from impugned judgment and decree dated 15.09.10 passed by Learned Trial Court vide which suit of the respondent was decreed.
2. The notice of the appeal was given to the respondent.
3. The facts of the case are like this. The plaintiff (herein respondent) has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant with the averments that she is owner of shop No.185A, South Anarkali, Som Bazar, Chander Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property), The defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property on a monthly rental of Rs.7500/ excluding other charges. The defendant has been in possession of the suit property from 2006. A rent agreement dated 09.04.07 was executed vide which defendant was not allowed to carry on any business which is prohibited under law and to store any item which is hazardous to the life or property of the people residing in near vicinity. The defendant used to sell fruit juice in the suit property. The tenancy of the defendant was terminated vide legal notice dated 21.01.08 by seeing his conduct. The defendant started making and selling cold drinks. The defendant has stored gas cylinders and other chemicals used for preparing cold drinks. The storage of gas cylinders, chemicals and other pressure machines in the suit property may cause explosion as well as pollution in the suit property and it also requires permission from the local authority. She requested the defendant not to start such kind of business but in vain. Hence, this suit.
RCA No.39/2010 Page 2 of 5
4. The defendant didn't file the WS as a result opportunity to file the written statement was closed as apparent from order sheet dated 01.07.08.
5. The plaintiff examined two witnesses including himself as PW1. Learned Trial Court after perusing oral as well as documentary evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff.
6. I have heard Learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that rent agreement clearly shows that suit property was let out for commercial purposes and there is nothing on the record that any hazardous good is stored by the appellant. He further submitted that rent agreement has not been properly appreciated by learned trial court. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the respondent, urged to the contrary.
8. Heard and perused the record. It is admitted fact that respondent has let out the suit property to the appellant on a monthly rental of Rs.7500/ for commercial purposes. A rent agreement Ex.PW2/A was duly executed between the parties to the suit. The rent agreement is not in dispute. Clause 2 of the agreement says that suit property is let out for commercial purposes. Clause 5 says that appellant shall not do any commitment against the law and regulation of Government or MCD. Clause 10 says that appellant shall not store any dangerous goods / items in the suit property. The respondent while appearing as PW1 has categorically stated that appellant used to sell fruit juice in the suit property. The appellant has closed the said business and has started manufacturing and selling RCA No.39/2010 Page 3 of 5 local cold drinks by storing gas cylinders and other chemicals used for manufacturing cold drinks. The storage of gas cylinders, chemicals and other machines for manufacturing local cold drinks require license from the competent authority and storage of such kind of articles may cause explosion at any time and act of the appellant is contrary to the clause 5&10 of the rent agreement Ex.PW2/A.
9. Section 417 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act puts a prohibition on the use of premises for certain purposes without obtaining license from the Commissioner for the same for any of the purposes specified in part 1 of 11th schedule. Schedule 11 comprises of two parts. Part 1 reflects that a license is required to carry out the following trade and occupation as reflected. Part 2 says that articles shown may not be stored in the premises without having a license. Compound gas such as oxygen gas, hydrogen gas, nitrogen gas, radiocarbon gas, sulpher dioxide gas, chlorine gas and acitiline gas etc finds reflection at S. No.23. It is clear from the part 2 of schedule 11 that a license is required to keep the gases in the premises.
10. In the instant case, appellant is manufacturing and selling local cold drinks in the suit property. The suit property was let out to the appellant for commercial purposes with the condition that he will not do anything which is contrary to the law and regulation of the Government or MCD. The manufacturing of cold drinks require storage of gas, chemical and machines. A license is required to store such kind of articles. Admittedly, no license is taken by the appellant from any authority to store such kind RCA No.39/2010 Page 4 of 5 of articles. The suit property was not let out for the purposes for which it is being used by the appellant. The appellant is using the suit property contrary to the terms and conditions incorporated in rent agreement Ex.PW2/A as well as carrying on the said business without obtaining any license from the competent authority. The testimony of PW1 has gone unrebutted. There is nothing on the record to view her testimony with the aid of spectacles. The claim of the respondent is justified as appellant is acting contrary to the terms and conditions of the rent agreement as well as against the provisions of section 417 of DMC Act.
11. Learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the facts as well as evidence on record. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree dated 15.09.10 passed by Learned Trial Court and accordingly the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed with no order as to the cost. Decree sheet be prepared. TCR alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back. File of this court on completion be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court on 17.02.2011 (Suresh Kumar Gupta) Additional District Judge03 (East), Karkardooma Court, Delhi / 17.02.2011 RCA No.39/2010 Page 5 of 5