Delhi District Court
Atul Gulati vs Varsha Mehra on 23 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST : SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
RCT ARCT No.04/2024
Mr. Atul Gulati
S/o Late Shri S. C. Gulati
R/o Tower-9, Flat No. 703,
Orchid Petals, Sector - 49,
Gurugram, Haryana - 122018
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Mrs. Varsha Mehra
W/o Shri I. S. Mehra
R/o 18, Netaji Subhash Marg
Daryaganj, Delhi-110002
2. Mr. Pankaj Gulati
S/o Late Shri S. C. Gulati
204, First Floor
Sant Nagar, East of Kailash
New Delhi-110024
3. Mr. Amit Gulati
S/o Late Shri S. C. Gulati
R/o B-80, First Floor
Mayfield Garden, Sector-50,
Gurugram-122018
4. Mrs. Lucky Girotra (Dropped)
W/o Sandeep Girotra
Tower No. 4, Flat No. 701
Vipul Belmonte, Sector-53
Golf Course Road
Gurgaon-122002
5. Mrs. Rosy Matta (Dropped)
W/o Dr. Suneel Matta
1622, Ambakhar
Digitally signed
Atul Gulati Vs. Varsha Mehra & Ors. by RAJNEESH
RAJNEESH KUMAR
GUPTA
RCT ARCT No.04/2024 KUMAR
GUPTA
Date:
2024.12.23
Page 1 of 7
15:20:24
+0530
Navgaza, Mathura
Uttar Pradesh-281001
6. Ms. Pooja Gulati @ Shikha Gulati
D/o Late Shri S. C. Gulati
R/o 204, Ground Floor
Sant Nagar, East of Kailash
New Delhi-110065
... RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 19.04.2024
Arguments Heard : 09.12.2024
Date of Decision : 23.12.2024
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal under Section 38 of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter be referred as "the Act") against the order dated 27.02.2024 of the court of learned ACJ-CCJ- ARC vide which the application under Section 20 of the Act filed by appellant has been rejected in Misc. RC ARC No. 01/2023.
2. I have heard the arguments on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant; the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. File perused.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial court has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The impugned order is against the facts of the case and the law. The appellant is legally entitled to be placed in occupation of the tenanted premises i.e. Basement (earlier ground floor) of Shop No. 12, Defence Colony Market, New Delhi. The Digitally signed RAJNEESH by RAJNEESH Atul Gulati Vs. Varsha Mehra & Ors.
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.23
RCT ARCT No.04/2024 15:20:32 +0530 Page 2 of 7
trial court has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner and it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the appellant be put into occupation of the tenanted premises.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order as the trial court has passed the impugned order after considering the facts of the case and in accordance with law. The appeal is without any merits and it be dismissed.
4. Vide order dated 27.05.2009, the petition under Section 14 (1) (g) of the Act has been allowed by the trial court as follows :
"18. From the above discussion it is clear that petitioner has fulfilled all the necessary ingredients of Section 14 (1) (g) and Section 14 (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Accordingly, the eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent with respect to shop no. 12, Defence Colony Market, New Delhi.
19. Mr. Shailender Chopra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted during the course of arguments that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have elected to be placed in occupation of the demised property from which they are to be evicted. Respondents are directed to hand over the vacant possession of the shop no. 12, Defence Colony Market, New Delhi to the petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of this order i.e. on or before 27.07.2009. The petitioner / landlord shall complete the construction within 10 months of receiving the possession. The petitioner shall on the completion of the work of renovation of the Digitally signed Atul Gulati Vs. Varsha Mehra & Ors.
by RAJNEESH
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
RCT ARCT No.04/2024 GUPTA 2024.12.23
15:20:39
+0530
Page 3 of 7
building or re-building place the respondent no. 1 and 2 in occupation of the basement of the shop no. 12, Defence Colony Market, New Delhi on agreed rental or on standard rent to be determined by this court. File be consigned to record room."
In appeal against this judgment, the Additional Rent Control Tribunal vide judgment dated 09.11.2011 passed the following order :
"38. Thus, the appeal is found devoid of merits and is dismissed though with the rider that the order of eviction shall be put into execution, requiring the tenant to give up the possession temporarily for purpose of reconstruction, only upon the landlady showing to the satisfaction of the executing court that she has obtained revalidation of the building plans from the concerned authorities. For such purposes the landlady shall approach the executing court after informing the tenant in writing at the suit premises, with advance copy of the application to be moved. In the event of the Rent Controller recording satisfaction, the appellants would stand directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises within two months thereof and the respondent no. 1, in turn will be duty bound to complete the construction within 10 months of receiving the vacant possession."
It is relevant herein to mention the order dated 03.05.2017 of the executing court which is as follows :
"Ld. counsel for the DH has placed on record the fresh grant of sanction for reconstruction by SDMC in respect of suit property bearing shop no. 12, Defence Colony Market, New Delhi valid up to Atul Gulati Vs. Varsha Mehra & Ors. Digitally signed by RAJNEESH RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA RCT ARCT No.04/2024 KUMAR Date:
2024.12.23 Page 4 of 7 GUPTA 15:20:46 +0530 03.10.2021 along with the Sanction Plan. So, now valid Sanction Plan subsists for reconstruction of the suit property duly approved by the SDMC and there is no impediment for execution of judgment and decree dated 27.05.2009. So, the JD No. 1, 2 and 4 are directed to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of suit property to the DH within two months from today and thereafter, DH shall reconstruct the property within 10 months of receiving the vacant possession in terms of order dated 09.11.2011 passed by the Ld. Appellate Court.
Now put up for report as to the compliance of aforesaid order of handing over of vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the DH, on 10.07.2017."
5. It is relevant herein to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Nath & Anr. Vs. M/s Ram Nath Chhittar Mal & Ors. 1961 SCR (1) 600 while deciding the similar issue in the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 and is as follows :
"In our opinion the contentions raised by the appellants are well founded and the appellants must succeed. The suits for eviction were brought within the framework of the Act and were based on the provisions of s. 13, proviso (g). No eviction would have been possible excepting when conditions laid down in s. 13 were satisfied. The decrees which were passed were substantially in accordance with the provisions of s. 15 of the Act and as was contended by the appellants they were decrees under which the premises had to be vacated by the respondents on a specified day.Digitally signed by RAJNEESH
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA Atul Gulati Vs. Varsha Mehra & Ors. KUMAR Date:
2024.12.23 Page 5 of 7 GUPTA RCT ARCT No.04/2024 15:20:54 +0530 Under that section they had the right to elect and did elect to get possession after rebuilding; this possession was to be given by the landlords to the tenants within a reasonable time and six months' period was fixed by Consent between the parties and the rent, if the respondents were not put into possession on the same terms as before, was to be settled by court and that is what was done under the terms of the consent decree. The applications for being put into possession which were filed by the respondents were really under s. 15(3) of the Act. As the respondents did not deliver possession to the appellants on or before the dates specified in the decree the provisions of s. 15 contained in sub-s. (3) of that Act were not available to them and they were, not entitled to be put into possession as prayed by them."
6. The tenants had defaulted in handing over the possession to the landlord as per the aforesaid orders. The possession of the tenanted premises has been obtained by the landlord on 04.09.2018 through execution of warrants of possession.
In view of the aforesaid orders and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the appellant had not delivered the possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent no. 1 in accordance with the orders, so the benefit of the provision of Section 20 of the Delhi Rent Control Act to be put into occupation of the tenanted premises is not available to the appellant. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 and the appeal is dismissed being without any merits.
Digitally signed Atul Gulati Vs. Varsha Mehra & Ors. by RAJNEESH RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR RCT ARCT No.04/2024 GUPTA Date: 2024.12.23 Page 6 of 7 15:21:01 +0530
7. A copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed
RAJNEESH by RAJNEESH
KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA
Date: 2024.12.23
GUPTA 15:21:08 +0530
Announced in the open Court (RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA) Today, 23.12.2024 Principal District & Sessions Judge South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi Atul Gulati Vs. Varsha Mehra & Ors.
RCT ARCT No.04/2024 Page 7 of 7