Delhi District Court
Also At vs Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha on 23 July, 2013
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGEI:
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
Regular Civil Appeal No.82/2013
UID No.02405C0087132013
In the matter of:
Shri Anil Kumar,
S/o Shri Raghunath,
R/o H.No.9, Dev Kunj,
Sector7, Dwarka, New Delhi.
Also At:
Shop No.33, Dada Dev Mandir Prabhandak Sabha
(Barah Gaon), Palam, New Delhi.
.....Appellant
(Through Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon) Palam,
Through Shri Chander Bhan,
Authorized Representative, New Delhi.
.....Respondent
(Through Shri B.S Kharb & Shri V.S Kharb, Advocates)
Date of Institution of Appeal : 04.04.2013
Date of Transfer to this Court : 09.05.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 20.07.2013
Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2013
APPEAL U/s 96 CPC r/w ORDER 41 CPC AGAINST ORDER DATED 25.02.2013, PASSED
IN CS No.419/2012 BY SHRI NAVEEN ARORA, THE THEN LD.SCJ/RC (S/W).
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 1 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
Regular Civil Appeal No.73/2013
UID No.02405C0088972013
In the matter of:
Shri Hari Narayan Bansal,
S/o Shri Rangi Ram,
R/o RZG29A, Dev Kunj,
Palam, New Delhi.
Also At:
Shop No.39, Dada Dev Mandir Prabhandak Sabha
(Barah Gaon), Palam, New Delhi.
.....Appellant
(Through Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon) Palam,
Through Shri Chander Bhan,
Authorized Representative.
.....Respondent
(Through Shri B.S Kharb & Shri V.S Kharb, Advocates)
Date of Institution of Appeal : 02.04.2013
Date of Transfer to this Court : 09.05.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 20.07.2013
Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2013
APPEAL U/s 96 CPC r/w ORDER 41 CPC AGAINST ORDER DATED 25.02.2013, PASSED
IN CS No.414/2012 BY SHRI NAVEEN ARORA, THE THEN LD.SCJ/RC (S/W).
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 2 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
Regular Civil Appeal No.19/2013
In the matter of:
Shri Ashok Kumar,
S/o Shri Raghubir Singh,
R/o WZ573, Jain Mandir Wali Gali,
Vill. & PO: Palam, New Delhi.
Also At:
Shop No.24, Dada Dev Mandir Prabhandak Sabha
(Barah Gaon), Palam, New Delhi.
.....Appellant
(Through Shri Akil Rateeya, Advocate)
Versus
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon) Palam,
Through Shri Chander Bhan,
Authorized Representative, New Delhi.
.....Respondent
(Through Shri B.S Kharb & Shri V.S Kharb, Advocates)
Date of Institution of Appeal : 25.03.2013
Date of Transfer to this Court : 30.04.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 20.07.2013
Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2013
APPEAL U/s 96 CPC r/w ORDER 43 RULE 1 CPC AGAINST ORDER DATED 25.02.2013, PASSED
IN CS No.408/2012 BY SHRI NAVEEN ARORA, THE THEN LD.SCJ/RC (S/W).
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 3 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
Regular Civil Appeal No.80/2013
UID No.02405C0087162013
In the matter of:
Shri Ram Gopal Gupta,
S/o Shri Babu Ram Gupta,
R/o H.No.Plot No.4,
Bhawani Nagar, Deenpur,
New Delhi.
Also At:
Shop No.9, Dada Dev Mandir Prabhandak Sabha
(Barah Gaon), Palam, New Delhi.
.....Appellant
(Through Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon) Palam,
Through Shri Chander Bhan,
Authorized Representative, New Delhi.
.....Respondent
(Through Shri B.S Kharb & Shri V.S Kharb, Advocates)
Date of Institution of Appeal : 02.04.2013
Date of Transfer to this Court : 09.05.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 20.07.2013
Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2013
APPEAL U/s 96 CPC r/w ORDER 41 CPC AGAINST ORDER DATED 25.02.2013, PASSED
IN CS No.420/2012 BY SHRI NAVEEN ARORA, THE THEN LD.SCJ/RC (S/W).
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 4 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
Regular Civil Appeal No.77/2013
UID No.02405C0087192013
In the matter of:
Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma,
S/o Shri Gopal Kisan,
R/o B201, Sector7, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
Also At:
Shop No.45, Dada Dev Mandir Prabhandak Sabha
(Barah Gaon), Palam, New Delhi.
.....Appellant
(Through Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon) Palam,
Through Shri Chander Bhan,
Authorized Representative, New Delhi.
.....Respondent
(Through Shri B.S Kharb & Shri V.S Kharb, Advocates)
Date of Institution of Appeal : 02.04.2013
Date of Transfer to this Court : 09.05.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 20.07.2013
Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2013
APPEAL U/s 96 CPC r/w ORDER 41 CPC AGAINST ORDER DATED 25.02.2013, PASSED
IN CS No.417/2012 BY SHRI NAVEEN ARORA, THE THEN LD.SCJ/RC (S/W).
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 5 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
Regular Civil Appeal No.78/2013
UID No.02405C0087062013
In the matter of:
Shri Thakur Singh,
S/o Shri Ram Mehar Singh,
R/o H.No.120, Village Baghdola,
New Delhi110 075.
Also At:
Shop No.19, Dada Dev Mandir Market Complex,
(Barah Gaon), Palam, New Delhi110 045.
.....Appellant
(Through Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
Through Authorized Representative,
Barah Gaon, Palam, New Delhi110 045.
.....Respondent
(Through Shri B.S Kharb & Shri V.S Kharb, Advocates)
Date of Institution of Appeal : 02.04.2013
Date of Transfer to this Court : 09.05.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 20.07.2013
Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2013
APPEAL U/s 96 CPC r/w ORDER 41 CPC AGAINST ORDER DATED 25.02.2013, PASSED
IN CS No.409/2012 BY SHRI NAVEEN ARORA, THE THEN LD.SCJ/RC (S/W).
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 6 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
Misc. Civil Appeal No:25/2013
In the matter of:
Shri Dinesh Kumar,
S/o Late Shri Bhagirath Prasad,
R/o A53, Raj NagarII
Palam Colony,
New Delhi - 110 045
Also at:
Shop No.31,
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon), Palam
New Delhi110 045.
.....Appellant
(Through Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon) Palam
Through Sh. Chander Bhan
Authorised Representative, New Delhi .
.....Respondent
(Through Shri B.S. Kharb & Shri V.S Kharb, Advocates)
Date of Institution of Appeal : 11.07.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 20.07.2013
Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2013
APPEAL U/s 96 CPC r/w ORDER 41 CPC AGAINST THE ORDER/DECREE DATED 01.06.2013,
PASSED IN CS No.397/2012 BY DR. SAURABH KULSHRESTHA, ADDL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE/JSCC,
DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 7 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
Misc. Civil Appeal No.:26/2013
In the matter of:
Shri Ram Kumar Rathi,
S/o Shri Dharam Singh,
R/o H. No. WZ763, Badiyal,
Vill. & Post Office Palam,
New Delhi - 110 045.
Also at:
Shop No.56,
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon), Palam,
Through Shri Chander Bhan, Authorized Representative,
New Delhi.
.....Appellant
(Through Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon) Palam
Through Sh. Chander Bhan
Authorised Representative, New Delhi.
.....Respondent
(Through Shri B.S. Kharb & Shri V.S Kharb, Advocates)
Date of Institution of Appeal : 11.07.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 20.07.2013
Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2013
APPEAL U/s 96 CPC AGAINST THE ORDER/DECREE DATED 03.06.2013, PASSED BY
DR. SAURABH KULSHRESTHA, ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE/JSCC, DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS
IN CIVIL SUIT No.: 394/2012
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 8 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
Misc. Civil Appeal No.27/2013
In the matter of:
Shri Mohd. Yunus,
S/o Mohd. Ilyash,
R/o H. No. A64, ManglapuriII
Palam Colony,
New Delhi - 110 045.
Also at:
Shop No.15,
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon), Palam
New Delhi.
.....Appellant
(Through Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon) Palam
Through Sh. Chander Bhan
Authorised Representative, New Delhi.
.....Respondent
(Through Shri B.S. Kharb & Shri V.S Kharb, Advocates)
Date of Institution of Appeal : 11.07.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 20.07.2013
Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2013
APPEAL U/s 96 CPC r/w ORDER 41 CPC AGAINST THE ORDER/DECREE DATED 01.06.2013,
PASSED BY DR. SAURABH KULSHRESTHA, ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE/JSCC, DWARKA
DISTRICT COURTS IN CIVIL SUIT No.400/2012
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 9 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
Regular Civil Appeal No.74/2013
UID No.02405C0087142013
In the matter of:
Shri Rajbir Singh,
S/o Late Shri Lezkh Singh,
R/o WZ14, Asalata Pur,
New Delhi.
Also at:
Shop No.53,
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon), Palam
New Delhi.
.....Appellant
(Through Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon) Palam
Through Shri Chander Bhan
Authorised Representative, New Delhi.
.....Respondent
(Through Shri B.S. Kharb & Shri V.S Kharb, Advocates)
Date of Institution of Appeal : 02.04.2013
Date of transfer to this court : 09.05.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 20.07.2013
Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2013
APPEAL U/s 96 CPC r/w ORDER 41 CPC AGAINST THE ORDER/DECREE DATED 25.02.2013,
PASSED BY SHRI NAVEEN ARORA, THE THEN LD. SR. CIVIL JUDGE, DWARKA DISTRICT
COURTS IN CIVIL SUIT NO. 412/2012.
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 10 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
Regular Civil Appeal No.75/2013
UID No.02405C0087182013
In the matter of:
Shri Balbir Singh,
S/o Late Shri Balwant Singh,
Village Bagdola, New Delhi
Also at:
Shop No. 51 & 52,
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon), Palam,
New Delhi.
.....Appellant
(Through Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon) Palam
Through Shri Chander Bhan
Authorized Representative, New Delhi.
.....Respondent
(Through Shri B.S. Kharb & Shri V.S Kharb, Advocates)
Date of Institution of Appeal : 02.04.2013
Date of transfer to this court : 09.05.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 20.07.2013
Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2013
APPEAL U/s 96 CPC r/w ORDER 41 CPC AGAINST THE ORDER/DECREE DATED 25.02.2013,
PASSED BY SHRI NAVEEN ARORA, THE THEN LD. SR. CIVIL JUDGE, DWARKA DISTRICT
COURTS IN CIVIL SUIT NO. 415/2012
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 11 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
Regular Civil Appeal No.76/2013
UID No.02405C0087112013
In the matter of:
Shri Sushil Kumar,
S/o Shri Nathi Ram Jain,
R/o RZH93, Sir Chhotu Ram Marg,
Raj NagarII, Palam, New Delhi.
Also at:
Shop No.7,
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon), Palam
New Delhi.
.....Appellant
(Through Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon) Palam
Through Shri Chander Bhan
Authorised Representative, New Delhi.
.....Respondent
(Through Shri B.S. Kharb & Shri V.S Kharb, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Appeal : 02.04.2013
Date of transfer to this court : 09.05.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 20.07.2013
Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2013
APPEAL U/s 96 CPC r/w ORDER 41 CPC AGAINST THE ORDER/DECREE DATED 25.02.2013,
PASSED BY SHRI NAVEEN ARORA, LD. SR. CIVIL JUDGE, DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS IN
CIVIL SUIT NO. 418/2012.
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 12 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
Regular Civil Appeal No.79/2013
UID No.02405C0087122013
In the matter of:
Shri Harkesh Solanki,
S/o Late Shri Narayan Singh,
R/o WZ789, Vill. & PO: Palam,
New Delhi.
Also at:
Shop No.50,
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon), Palam
New Delhi.
.....Appellant
(Through Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon) Palam,
Through Shri Chander Bhan
Authorised Representative, New Delhi.
.....Respondent
(Through Shri B.S. Kharb & Shri V.S Kharb, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Appeal : 02.04.2013
Date of transfer to this court : 09.05.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 20.07.2013
Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2013
APPEAL U/s 96 r/w ORDER 41 CPC AGAINST THE ORDER/DECREE DATED 25.02.2013, PASSED
BY SHRI NAVEEN ARORA, THE THEN LD.SR. CIVIL JUDGE, DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS
IN CIVIL SUIT No.422/2012
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 13 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
Regular Civil Appeal No.81/2013
UID No.02405C0087152013
In the matter of:
Shri Charan Singh,
S/o Shri Dalip Singh,
R/o WZ309, Vill. & Post Office: Palam,
New Delhi.
Also at:
Shop No.54,
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon), Palam
New Delhi.
.....Appellant
(Through Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha
(Barah Gaon) Palam,
Through Shri Chander Bhan
Authorised Representative, New Delhi.
.....Respondent
(Through Shri B.S. Kharb & Shri V.S Kharb, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Appeal : 02.04.2013
Date of transfer to this court : 09.05.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 20.07.2013
Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2013
APPEAL U/s 96 CPC r/w ORDER 96 CPC AGAINST THE ORDER/DECREE DATED 25.02.2013,
PASSED BY SHRI NAVEEN ARORA, LD. SR. CIVIL JUDGE, DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS
IN CIVIL SUIT No.410/2012
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 14 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
23.07.2013
J U D G M E N T:
All these appeals are being disposed of by way of a common judgment, as there involves similar questions of facts and law. All these appeals are against orders passed by the Ld.Trial Court, whereby applications U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC, filed on behalf of plaintiff were allowed and decree of possession against the defendants (appellants herein) in respect of tenanted shops were passed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this judgment are being referred to as per their respective status before the Ld.Trial Court.
3. The facts of the case, relevant for the present are that plaintiff Dada Dev Mandir Prabhandak Sabha (Barah Gaon), Palam is a society registered under Delhi Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the "society"). The society has a huge Mandir and a lot of devotees who come from nearby different villages and villages outside Delhi, to worship there. The front portion of Mandir, managed by the society has 54 shops, which have been rented out to different tenants. The defendants in these appeals are some of the tenants in respect of shops given on rent to them by the plaintiff. The suits for eviction against the defendants were filed by the society through its Pradhan namely Shri Chander Bhan, pursuant to a Resolution dated 06.05.2012, passed by the society in his favour. Thereafter, a further Resolution dated 20.05.2012 was passed by the society, authorising Shri Chander Bhan to institute the suit for eviction against the defendants and after signing and verifying the same. It was stated in all the suits that the possession of all the shops All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 15 of 28 MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013 was required for the purpose of construction of a Dharamshala and parking lot. It was further stated that because of the commercial activity carried out by the defendants in their shops, a lot of crowding takes place at or around the area, which causes hindrance in the free ingress and egress of the devotees, who come to pay their respect to the Mandir. It was also averred that the defendants were in the arrears of rent w.e.f January' 2012.
4. Notices u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were served upon the defendants by the plaintiff society, whereby their tenancies were terminated and they were asked to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of their respective shops to the society, so that the society could demolish the shops and start the work of construction of Dharmshala and parking lot therein.
5. Rather than vacating their respective shops, the tenants of all the shops formed a union in the name of "Dada Dev Mandir Welfare Association" and filed a suit for injunction against the "society", which is pending disposal in the court of Ld.ACJ (SouthWest), wherein the defendants have admitted themselves to be the tenants of plaintiff society. The copy of plaint in the said suit is there on record, wherein several grounds have been mentioned for grant of permanent injunction.
6. In the written statement, the defendants have questioned the ownership of the shops by the society; that the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act are applicable to the shops in question and that the society has approached the court with unclean hands and their motive is to evict the defendants from the shops to let out the same to other proposed tenants at a higher rent. All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 16 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
7. Thereafter, the society filed an application U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC in all the cases before the Ld.Trial Court. The said applications were allowed by the Ld.Trial Court.
8. The reasoning given by the Ld.Trial Court in all the cases is that landlordtenant relationship has been admitted by the defendants, receipt of legal notice has also been admitted, however, a question has been raised that the society is not competent to issue Notice U/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act. The Ld.Trial Court on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as, "2000 (9) SCC 720", titled as, "Mittar Sen Jain V/s Shakuntala Devi" and subsequent judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi came to the conclusion that the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act are not applicable to the shops in question.
9. The reasoning of the Ld.Trial Court has been questioned by way of these appeals, interalia on the following grounds:
(i) That the plaintiff society is not the owner of the shops in question;
(ii) That the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act are applicable to the shops in question and;
(iii) That the suits were not instituted by a duly authorized person before the Trial Court.
10. In some of the matters, applications U/o 41 Rule 27 CPC were also filed at the time of final arguments in these appeals. By way of said applications, some of the defendants wanted to place on record copies of Memorandum of All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 17 of 28 MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013 Association and Articles of Association of the society as well as Khasra Khatoni in respect of the land where the said shops are there. In the interest of justice, the said applications were allowed and the counsel for the defendants were permitted to rely upon the said documents, although the Ld.Trial Court did not have the benefit of perusing the said documents. The learned counsels for the defendants also made a bleak attempt to question the landlordtenant relationship between the parties, however, the said argument carries no force in view of specific admissions in the pleadings as well as in the documents themselves filed by the defendants on record, which are rent receipts as well as the copies of Articles of Association and Memorandum of Association on the plaintiff society. It has been argued at bar by the learned counsels for the defendants that the shops were given on rent to them by Dada Dev Mandir Committee and not by the "society". This argument on the face of it is mischievous. The answer to this argument is there in the Memorandum of Association of the society itself, wherein para 3 enlists 15 Mandirs/incidental buildings which were supposed to be maintained by the society. The Mandir Committee is just one of the constituents of the society. As regards the question to the ownership of the society is concerned, the defendants cannot be permitted to question the same in view of provisions of Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act. In case reported as, "199 (2013) DLT 194", titled as, "Earthtek Enterprises Ltd. V/s Kuljit Patel", the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to infer the landlord tenant relationship even from the TDS Certificates, wherein the tenant had represented himself as a tenant in the demised premises in his IncomeTax Returns. The cases in hand are even at better footing then the one which was before the Hon'ble High Court. So far as the issue with respect to claim of ownership of the All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 18 of 28 MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013 plaintiff society of the shops in question is concerned, Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act is complete answer in as much as under this provision, a tenant is estopped from disputing the title of his landlord.
11. Reference to Khasra Khatoni of the year 1977 in respect of land in question is again mischievous. Even perusal of the said Khasra Khatoni also reveals that the land in question over which the shops were constructed was part of Mandir. This supports the case of plaintiff rather than the case of defendants.
12. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as, "JT 2012 (9) SC 214", titled as, "Payal Vision Ltd. V/s Radhika Choudhary", has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
6. In a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, all that is required to be established by the plaintifflandlord is the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of the tenancy either by lapse of time or by notice served by the landlord U/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
So long as these two aspects are not in dispute the court can pass a decree in terms of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, which reads as under:
"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. All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 19 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
(2) Whether a judgment is pronounced under sub
rule (1) of a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced."
7. The above sufficiently empowers the Court trying the suit to deliver judgment based on admissions whenever such admissions are sufficient for the grant of the relief prayed for. Whether or not there was an unequivocal and clear admission on either of the two aspects to which we have referred above and which are relevant to a suit for possession against a tenant is, therefore, the only question that falls for determination in this case and in every other case where the plaintiff seeks to invoke the powers of the Court U/o XII Rule 6 CPC and prays for passing of decree on the basis of admission. Having said that we must add that whether or not there is a clear admission upon the two aspects noted above is a matter to be seen in the fact situation prevailing in each case. Admission made on the basis of pleadings in a given case cannot obviously be taken as an admission in a different fact situation. That precisely is the view taken by this court in "Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd." (supra) relied upon by the High Court where this court has observed:
"Whether or not there is a clear, unambiguous admission by one party of the case of the other party is essentially a question of fact and the decision of this question depends upon the facts of the case. The question, namely, whether there is a clear admission or not cannot be decided on the basis of a judicial precedent. Therefore, even though the principles in Karam Kapahi (supra) may be unexceptionable they cannot be applied in the instant case in view of totally different fact situation". xxxxx (underlining is mine) All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 20 of 28 MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
13. This now leaves us to another important aspect as to whether the provision of Delhi Rent Control Act are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case or not.
14. The learned counsels for the defendants have very vehemently argued that the suits filed by the plaintiff are barred U/s 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act, as firstly the provisions of DRC Act are applicable to the area in question and secondly the rate of rent is less than Rs.3,500/. The argument is supported with Notification of the Government dated 23.05.1963, issued U/s 507 of DMC Act regarding urbanization of village Najafgarh and Notification dated 27.03.1979, issued U/s 1 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, extending the operation of Delhi Rent Control Act to the area of Najafgarh. It is argued that village Dabri falls within the jurisdiction of village Najafgarh and as such, the provisions of DRC Act are applicable by virtue of aforesaid two Notifications. In support of aforesaid contentions, order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 154/2011, titled as, "Uma Shankar Goel V/s Sohan Pal" has also been relied upon, whereby the Hon'ble High Court in respect of land falling in village West Sagarpur has been pleased to opine that the Notification dated 23.05.1963 has noted that Najafgarh area has ceased to be a rural area and by virtue of Notification of the year 1979, whether the provisions of DRC Act would be applicable or not can be seen only during the course of trial.
15. In my considered opinion, this factual ground taken is incorrect and the same has been taken by suppressing the relevant notification of the government, applicable to the land forming part of village Palam. Since, this point has been All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 21 of 28 MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013 taken, it is required to be adjudicated. It is admitted stand of the defendants in the written statement that the suit property is part of village Palam and not village Najafgarh. Prior to the year 1997, the entire Delhi had three Revenue Divisions namely Mehrauli, Narela and Shahdara, each headed by a Deputy Commissioner. In January' 1997, nine Districts were created, which were Central Delhi, North Delhi, South Delhi, East Delhi, NorthEast Delhi, SouthWest Delhi, New Delhi, NorthWest Delhi and West Delhi and village Najafgarh became part of SouthWest Delhi. Presently, there are 11 Districts/Divisions existing in Delhi. The suit property falls in SouthWest revenue district and village Palam is part of Najafgarh SubDivision. SouthWest District has three SubDivisions, i.e Delhi Cantonment, Vasant Vihar and Najafgarh. Village Palam forms part of Najafgarh SubDivision. By way of Notification dated 23.05.1983, village Najafgarh was declared urbanized and by way of Notification dated 27.03.1979, the provisions of DRC Act were made applicable to village Najafgarh and not to entire revenue SubDivision of Najafgarh, as at that time Najafgarh was not even a SubDivision.
16. By way of Notification bearing No.F.33/Engg.TP(DP)/11424/94 Delhi, dated 24.10.1994, following 20 villages were declared urbanized:
(i) Palam,
(ii) Mirazapur,
(iii) Dabri,
(iv) Nasirpur,
(v) Sagarpur,
(vi) Bagdola,
(vii) Sahupura,
(viii) Matiala,
(ix) Bindapur,
(x) Kakrola,
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 22 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
(xi) Laharhar,
(xii) Toganpur,
(xiii) Amberhal,
(xiv) Sahabad Mohammadpur,
(xv) Bharthal,
(xvi) Nawada,
(xvii) Pochanpur,
(xviii) Bemnoh,
(xix) Dhulsiras,
(xx) Bijwasan.
However, no notification U/s 1 (2) of DRC Act, 1958 in respect thereof has been issued by the Government till date.
17. If the argument of learned counsel for the defendants that the suit shops fall in Najafgarh SubDivision and by way of Notification dated 27.03.1979, the provisions of DRC Act stood applicable to it is accepted, then that would go counter to the Notification dated 24.10.1994 in respect of village Palam. If village Palam already stood urbanized, being part of Najafgarh SubDivision in the year 1963, then there was no need for the Government to have declared it urbanized again in the year 1994. The only possible interpretation of both the notifications is that in the year 1963 village Najafarh was urbanized, whereas village Palam was urbanized in the year 1994.
18. The learned counsels for the defendants have stated that as per the Schedule 14, Entry 12 contained in the Delhi Municipal Act the area of village Palam falls within the Revenue Estate of Najafgarh. According to me, the learned counsel is misinterpreting the word "Revenue Estate". In the year 1963 Najafgarh itself was a village. A perusal of Delhi Rent Control Act would show that Delhi All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 23 of 28 MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013 Rent Control Act is applicable to urbanized area and not the rural area and as such prior to applicability of Delhi Rent Control Act, the area must be urbanized. Certainly in 1958 when Delhi Rent Control Act was legislated and made applicable to Delhi, it was applicable to entire urban area of Delhi as given in Schedule I and admittedly Najafgarh was not part to it. As per own showing of the defendants, Najafgarh was urbanized in the year 1963 and there is no evidence to show that in the year 1963 village Palam was part of Najafgarh. Revenue Estate means agriculture land of that village which generates revenue and admittedly Palam village was urbanized vide Notification No.F.33/Engg./TP(DP)11424/94 Delhi, dated 24.10.1994 under Clause A of Section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.
19. If what has been stated by the defendants is taken as a gospel truth and it is assumed that the said village was part of Revenue Estate of Najafgarh in the year 1963, where was the question of urbanization of this village again in the year 1994.
20. Therefore, the Ld.Trial Court rightly relied upon the Notification bearing No.F.33/Engg.TP(DP)/11424/94 Delhi, dated 24.10.1994 and held that the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act are not applicable. This legal issue is no more resintegra. The issue of applicability of DRC Act in respect of village Palam which was urbanized vide the aforesaid Notification came up for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court in CM (M) Appeal No.789/91, titled as, "Hira Lal V/s Virender Pal Sharma". The Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 20.04.2000 decided the issue as under:
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 24 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
xxxx
The case of the petitioner is that the area in which his premises are situated, namely Palam is a part of rural Najafgarh and that this came to be urbanized only sometime in 1994. Reliance is placed on a Notification No.F.33/Engg/TP (DP)/11424/94 Delhi, dated 24.10.1994. It is submitted that by virtue of the proviso to subsection (2) of section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the provisions of the Act are required to be extended to that area to bring it within the operation of the Act. This has not been done.
The learned Rent Control Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the area was urbanized by a notification dated 23.05.1963 and that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 were extended to this area by a notification dated 27.03.1979.
However, as seen from the notification dated 24.10.1994, the area comprising of village Palam within the revenue estate of rural Najafgarh came to be urbanized only recently. No notification has been issued under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
The notifications dated 23.05.1963 and 27.03.1979 have no application to the area covered by the Notification dated 24.10.1994.
Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.09.1999 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal is set aside and the petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
xxxxx
(underlining which is mine is emphasized)
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 25 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
21. The issue again came up before the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in respect of village Palam. This time in a Public Interest Litigation, filed by Palam Area Tenants Association, being CW No.4284/2000, titled as, "Palam Area Tenants Association V/s UoI & Anr.", seeking a writ of Mandamus against the Union of India and Delhi Government to issue a notification U/s 1 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, extending the applicability of the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act with regard to the villages urbanized vide notification of the year 1994 (same notification which is there in this case). The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 29.07.2003 dismissed the writ petition, interalia holding as under:
xxxx This matter is placed before this court as it is stated that it is a Public Interest Litigation. The main prayer is for issuance of notification extending Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 to the revenue estate of entire Palam village retrospectively with effect from 03.11.1994, i.e from the date on which the area was declared urbanized. Such amendment cannot be allowed by this Court. The law is very clear on the subject. The Apex Court in "Union of India V/s Shree Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 94", has stated as under:
"This Court observed that no mandamus could be issued to the Executive directing it to commence the operation of the enactment; that such a direction should not be construed as any approval by the Court, of the failure on the part of the Central Government for a long period to bring the provisions of the enactment into force.".
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 26 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
In this view of the matter, this petition is
required to be dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
xxxxx
(underlining is mine)
Therefore, the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act are not applicable to suit shops.
22. I also do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsels for the defendants that the suits were not properly instituted by the plaintiff before the Ld.Trial Court, on the ground that Shri Chander Bhan, the Pradhan of the society is not authorized to file the same. In this regard, the copies of Resolution dated 06.05.2012 as well as 25.05.2012 are on record. The original Minute Book has also been produced in court for the inspection of Court. The original Minute Book has not been questioned by the learned counsels for the defendants. Perusal of original Minute Book shows that the Pradhans of all the 13 villages, for which the plaintiff society exists and the Pradhans of said villages are patrons of the plaintiff society, have signed with their mobile numbers on the original Minute Book and the same is also getting reflected in the copies of Resolutions which have been placed on record. Secondly, the Societies Registration Act, 1860 authorizes the President, Chairman, Principal Secretary or trustees to institute a suit on behalf of society.
23. Therefore, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the impugned judgments in the said appeals. All the aforesaid appeals being meritless stand dismissed.
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 27 of 28
MCAs & RCAs DOD: 23.07.2013
24. A copy of this judgment be placed in all the aforesaid appeals.
25. The trial court record be sent back forthwith to the Ld.Trial Court along with copy of this judgment. Parties are directed to appear before the Ld.Trial Court on 26.07.2013 at 2.00 PM.
26. Appeal files be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav)
open Court on 23.07.2013 Addl. District JudgeI/SouthWest
Dwarka District Courts: New Delhi
All Appeals against U/o 12 R 6 CPC: "All Appeals Dismissed" Page 28 of 28