Delhi District Court
Vinay Kumar Gupta vs Shrimati Satya Rani on 5 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE
(EAST) cum ADDL. RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
RCA No.15/2011
Unique Case ID No.02402C0150152011
Vinay Kumar Gupta
S/o Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta
R/o 114, Gopal Park, Chander Nagar,
Delhi110051. ...Appellant
Versus
Shrimati Satya Rani
W/o Late Shri Mam Raj Bansal,
R/o D12, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi110051. ...Respondent
Date of Institution : 19.05.2011
Date of order reserved : 27.08.2011
Date of order : 05.09.2011
O R D E R
By this order, I shall dispose of present appeal filed by the appellant against impugned order dated 06.04.2011 RCA No.15/11 Vinay Kumar Gupta vs. Satya Rani Page 1 of 6 passed by Ld. ARC, Karkardooma Court whereby petition of the appellant seeking deposit of rent for the period 1.2.2010 to 31.07.2010 @ Rs. 2750/ per month was dismissed. 2 Being aggrieved with passing of impugned order, appellant has preferred the present appeal mainly on the grounds that impugned order is not in consonance with material available on record and law as Ld. Trial Court heavily relied upon dismissal of petition of the appellant under section 45 of the DRC Act and initiation of ejectment proceedings against brother of the appellant in respect of same premises, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3 Trial court record has been called. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire material available on the record.
4 It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that impugned order is not based on any evidence and wrong appreciation of material available on record, therefore, same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that impugned order is in consonance with cogent and convincing material and does not suffer from any infirmity. RCA No.15/11 Vinay Kumar Gupta vs. Satya Rani Page 2 of 6 5 Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon authorities reported as Ram Ratan Misra and another vs Smt. Bittan Kaur AIR 1980 Allahabad 395 and Rajammal vs. Chinnathal AIR 1976 Madras 4 wherein it has been held that when attesting witness of a document was not examined as he had been won over, there was no sufficient ground for consideration of other evidence to prove the execution and due execution can not be said to have been proved. Reliance has also been placed on Smt. Bimla Rani Gupta vs. S.R. Sachdeva 84(2000) DLT 171 wherein it has been held that where rent agreement for a period of two years was neither duly stamped nor registered, it can not be permitted to be exhibited. 6 I have perused the impugned order. Perusal of impugned order shows that appellant herein had filed a petition for deposit of rent @ Rs.2750/ per month for the period 01.02.2010 to 31.07.2010 as respondent/ landlady herein was not accepting the rent. Respondent herein filed objections to the rent deposit petition alleging that same was not maintainable as Ld. Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the same inasmuch as it was brother of the petitioner, namely, Vineet Kumar Gupta who was a tenant in the premises in question on a monthly rent of Rs.5550/ and rent was RCA No.15/11 Vinay Kumar Gupta vs. Satya Rani Page 3 of 6 subsequently increased to Rs.8850/ and that landlady/ respondent had instituted ejectment suit against him. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that during the course of arguments, it was brought to notice of Ld. Trial Court that appellant herein had filed a petition under section 45 of the DRC Act against landlady/ respondent which was dismissed and even appeal against that order had also been dismissed holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
7 Ld. Counsel for the appellant had admitted before the Ld. Trial Court the factum of dismissal of his application under section 45 of the DRC Act and also dismissal of appeal. However, petition in the High Court against dismissal of appeal has been pending in which no stay or any interim relief has been granted to the appellant herein. Ld. Trial court relying on dismissal of petition of the appellant under section 45 of the DRC Act, dismissal of appeal also and institution of ejectment proceedings against brother of appellant, dismissed the petition holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 8 I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order inasmuch as in response to filing of objections to rent RCA No.15/11 Vinay Kumar Gupta vs. Satya Rani Page 4 of 6 deposit petition of the appellant by the landlady/ respondent, appellant has not filed any documents in the form of rent agreement/ rent receipt etc. so that Ld. Trial Court could have an opportunity and occasion to adjudicate the issue of relationship between appellant and the respondent. Rather, there were sufficient reasons for dismissal of the petition inasmuch as an issue of relationship of landlady and tenant had already been set at rest by decision on application of the appellant under section 45 of the DRC Act. Even appeal preferred by the appellant against said order has also been dismissed and even in petition filed by appellant in Hon'ble High Court against the order of appeal, there was no stay or interim order, therefore, placing reliance on these proceedings by Ld. Trial Court can not be faulted. Even respondent/ landlady has instituted ejectment suit against brother of the appellant on the basis of rent agreement with regard to premises in question.
9 In view of above reasons and peculiarity of the present case, aforesaid authorities relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the appellant are not attracted to the facts of the present case. I am therefore of the view that impugned order is based on cogent and convincing reasons and no illegality, infirmity or impropriety can be RCA No.15/11 Vinay Kumar Gupta vs. Satya Rani Page 5 of 6 found therein. Present appeal is without any merits. Same is accordingly dismissed.
10 Trial Court record be sent back to court concerned along with copy of the order. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 05.09.2011 District Judge (East)
Addl. Rent Control Tribunal
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
RCA No.15/11 Vinay Kumar Gupta vs. Satya Rani Page 6 of 6