Delhi High Court - Orders
Shri Jagdeep Singh Soi vs M/S V. Raj Industries & Anr on 25 April, 2022
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~106 (Appellate)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 378/2022 & CM No.19828/2022, CM No.19829/2022
SHRI JAGDEEP SINGH SOI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Naresh Gupta, Mr.Sachin Jain,
Mr.Himansh Yadav and Mr.Rachit Gumber,
Advs.
versus
M/S V. RAJ INDUSTRIES & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 25.04.2022 CM No.19829/2022 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM(M) 378/2022 & CM No.19828/2022 (interim stay)
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by a seemingly innocuous order dated 26th February, 2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge ("the learned SCJ") on an application filed by Respondent 1, as the defendant in the said suit under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking to amend the written statement filed in response to the suit filed by the petitioner.
4. Respondent 1 sought, by its application, to amend para 31 of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:29.04.2022 15:26:08 written statement, in which the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge to adjudicate the dispute was sought to be questioned on the ground that the suit property was an industrial shed, commanding a rent of only ₹ 200/- per month and that, therefore, lay outside the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge by virtue of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act).
5. Mr. Ravi Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment that was being sought to be incorporated in the written statement was not bonafide. He has drawn attention to the fact that, initially, CS SCJ 19/2018 was filed by the petitioner against the respondents, seeking an injunction, on the ground that the suit property was an industrial shed. This suit was disposed of, by the learned SCJ on 3rd January, 2019 recording the statement of the respondents that they would not part with the possession of the suit property save and except in accordance with law. The order also recorded admission that the suit property was in fact an industrial shed.
6. This being the stand of the respondents, the petitioner moved an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act, seeking eviction of the respondents from the suit property on the ground of continuous default in payment of rent. In the written statement filed by them, the respondents vacillated from the stand earlier adopted, and sought to contend that the suit property was an open land and that, therefore, the Rent Controller was coram non judice to adjudicate on the petitioner's petition. Mr. Gupta has drawn my attention to the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:29.04.2022 15:26:08 following passage, from the written statement filed by the respondents in response to the eviction petition which commences with the following paragraph:
"1. That the present petition is not maintainable under Delhi Rent Control Act as the father of the petitioner has given open piece of land to the respondent There is no appearance on behalf of the parties.1 by taking huge amount of Pagri with condition to pay fixed sum of Rs.200/- per month with condition to get constructed the same at his own expenses as per the requirement of the respondent There is no appearance on behalf of the parties.1 and as such, it is not a tenancy qua the constructed premises but of only open piece of land on which DRC Act is not applicable."
7. As the respondent was now seeking to contend that the suit property was open land, the petitioner withdrew the eviction petition, with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings.
8. Following this, the petitioner filed a suit for possession in respect of the suit property being CS SCJ 599/2019, for recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. The respondents, in the written statement filed by them in response to the suit, now sought to contend that the suit was not maintainable as the suit property was in the nature of a partly constructed open piece of land on which Respondent 1 raised further constructions at its own expense. In view thereof, the respondent now sought to summersault on the stand taken by them in the eviction petition filed by the petitioner by contending that the premises fell within the purview of the DRC Act and that, therefore, the learned SCJ could not adjudicate on the dispute.
9. Despite this, the petitioner moved an application under Order Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:29.04.2022 15:26:08 XII Rule 6 of the CPC, seeking a decree on admissions, predicated on the admission contained in the written statement filed by the respondents in reply to the eviction petition earlier filed by the petitioner. It is stated that orders are reserved on the said application.
10. At this juncture, the respondents sought to move an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, from which the present dispute emanates. This application sought to incorporate, inter alia, para 8 in the written statement filed by the respondents, to read thus:
"8. That since the suit premises is an Industrial shed (Built up) and the monthly rent being Rs.200/- per month which is less than the ceiling limit of Rs.3500/- per month under the Delhi Rent Control Act, Adv. therefore, Adv. the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court to try, Adv. adjudicate and decide the present suit is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Accordingly, Adv. the present suit is liable to be dismissed as this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present suit."
11. A bare reading of the aforesaid paragraph indicates that the respondents are now seeking to contend that the suit property is in the nature of an industrial shed and that, therefore, the learned SCJ could not adjudicate on the dispute. This, Mr. Gupta submits, runs contrary to the stand adopted by the respondents in the written statement already filed by them in response to the suit.
12. Without properly appreciating these facts, Mr. Gupta submits that the learned SCJ, merely treating the amendment as an amendment raising an issue of jurisdiction which was even otherwise open to contest, has allowed the application of the respondents.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:29.04.2022 15:26:0813. In view thereof, issue notice returnable on 3rd June, 2022. Notice be served on the respondents by all modes including dasti as well as through learned Counsel appearing for the respondents before the learned SCJ.
14. I am informed that the matter is next listed before the learned SCJ on 9th June, 2022. As such, list this matter for disposal on 3rd June, 2022.
15. Reply to this petition, if any, may be filed within a period of three weeks from today with advance copy to learned Counsel for the petitioner who may file rejoinder thereto before the next date of hearing.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J APRIL 25, 2022/kr Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:29.04.2022 15:26:08