Delhi District Court
Shop vs Shri Satnarain Gupta on 4 September, 2014
1
In the court of Ms. Namrita Aggarwal
CCJ cum Additional Rent Controller1(Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Case No. M126/13
Unique ID No. 02401C0475362013
In the matter of :
Mrs. Jai Rani Gupta
W/o Shri Ratnesh Narain Gupta,
R/o C8/2A, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi.
Also at:
Shop, part of property bearing no. 6630,
Khari Baoli, Delhi. ............Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Shri Satnarain Gupta
S/o Sh. Hari Ram,
6632, Khari Baoli,
Delhi110006.
2. Shri Sanjay Gupta
S/o Shri Satnarain Gupta,
6632, Khari Baoli,
Delhi110006. .........Respondents
PETITION UNDER SECTION 44 OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958.
Page 1 of 5 Jai Rani Gupta Vs. Sat Narain Gupta & Anr. M.. No. 126/13
2
Date of Institution: 20.09.2013
Final arguments heard/case reserved for Judgment: 16.08.2014
Date of Judgment: 04.09.2014
Decision: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT:
1. Arguments on petition u/s 44 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 read with Section 151 CPC heard, by which the petitioner has sought permission to carry out repair work and to replace the old tin sheets on the roof of the tenanted premises, i.e., a shop forming part of property bearing no. 6630, Khari Baoli, Delhi, and also to remove the bags of malba from the tinshed of the said shop.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner alongwith her son Ashwani Kumar Gupta is carrying on business of Dhoop Agarbati from the said premises. That the father of respondent no. 2, who is also owner of the tenanted premises is also carrying on his business from the adjoining shop in the name and style of M/s Hari Ram Gulab Rai & Sons. That respondent no. 1 earlier let out the tenanted premises to father of the petitioner late Sh. Mam Chand Gupta, who was also carrying on business of Dhoop Agarbati under the name and style of Shri Mam Chand Gupta Dhoop Agarbati Wale.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent wants to evict the petitioner on one ground or the other and as per the directions of the respondents, some bags of malba have Page 2 of 5 Jai Rani Gupta Vs. Sat Narain Gupta & Anr. M.. No. 126/13 3 been put on the tin sheets of the shop and by putting said bags of malba, the tin sheets of the roof of the tenanted premises got damaged due to which there are big holes in the tin sheets from which water is coming forcibly in the said shop due to rainy season. It is averred that petitioner and his son approached the respondent to repair the tin sheets of the tenanted shop by removing the bags of malba from the tin sheets and to replace the old tin sheets or for allowing the petitioner to remove the bags of malba and change the old sheets by putting the new tin sheets on the roof of the said shop at their own costs. It is further averred by the petitioner that earlier also a petition u/s 44 of DRC Act was filed and allowed by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 03.06.1999 against which civil appeal was also filed, which was also dismissed. A legal notice dated 15.07.2013 was also sent by the petitioner to the respondent but no action has been taken by the respondent till date. In these circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for directing the respondents to remove the bags of malba from the tinshed on the roof of the said shop and to replace the old tin sheets by the new tin sheets and also to repair of the said shop so that rain water would be stopped from seeping into the shop or to allow the petitioner to do the same at their own costs.
4. Reply to the said application has been filed by the respondents wherein they denied all the averments stating that the petitioner is not carrying on business of Dhoop Agarbati alongwith her son and that said shop has been sublet to some other person. The placing of any malba bags on the tinshed of suit premises or damaged condition of the shop in question has also been denied by the respondents stating that tinshed/roof of the said premises is in good condition.
Page 3 of 5 Jai Rani Gupta Vs. Sat Narain Gupta & Anr. M.. No. 126/13 4
5. I have heard the contentions of both the parties and also perused the documents filed alongwith the petition.
6. The photographs of the tenanted premises which have been filed alongwith the petition clearly shows that Malba bags have been placed upon the tinshed/roof of the tenanted premises and there are holes in the said tinshed which require immediate repairs. I have also gone through the legal notice served by the petitioner upon the respondents and also through earlier petition filed by petitioner against the respondents for repair of the said tenanted premises. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner has not been paying rent regularly cannot be decided in the present petition, for which, the respondents are at liberty to file separate petition against the petitioner for the same. However, the present petition is only regarding repair and maintenance work of the tenanted premises so as to enable the petitioner to carry on their business smoothly.
7. Section 44 of the DRC Act, 1958, clearly states that: (1) Every landlord shall be bound to keep the premises in good and tenantable repairs. (2) If the landlord neglects or fails to make, within a reasonable time after notice in writing, any repairs which he is bound to make under subsection (1) the tenant may make the same himself and deduct the expenses of such repairs from the rent or otherwise recover them from the landlord:
PROVIDED that the amount so deducted or recoverable in any year shall not exceed onetwelfth of the rent payable by the tenant for that year.Page 4 of 5 Jai Rani Gupta Vs. Sat Narain Gupta & Anr. M.. No. 126/13 5
8. In the present case, the petitioners are not even asking for cost of repairs of tenanted premises from the respondent and that petitioners have clearly stated that thy are ready to do the repair work themselves at their own costs. In these circumstances, I find no reason to dis allow the petitioner to carry out repairs of tenanted premises in order to make the tenanted premises more useable and habitable. The photographs filed by the petitioner alongwith the petition clearly shows the dilapidated condition of the tenanted premises and therefore, the petitioner is allowed to get the repair work of the tenanted premises done which includes removal of malba bags from the roof/tinshed of the shop, replacement of old tin sheets into new tin sheets without making any pucca roof on the said shop and all other necessary consequential repair work without expanding the existing structure of the said shop. The petitioner is directed to file affidavit that they would not make any additional construction, pucca roof or would not expand the existing structure of the said shop by making said necessary repair work. Cost of the repairs is to be borne by the petitioner herself.
Hence, petition stands disposed off.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court (Namrita Aggarwal)
on 04 Day of September, 2014.
th
CCJ cum ARC1 (Central)
[This judgment contains 05 pages.] Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Page 5 of 5 Jai Rani Gupta Vs. Sat Narain Gupta & Anr. M.. No. 126/13