Delhi High Court
Crack Detectives Pvt. Ltd. vs Shri P.S. Malhotra on 15 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: 129(2006)DLT584
Author: B.N. Chaturvedi
Bench: B.N. Chaturvedi
JUDGMENT B.N. Chaturvedi, J.
1. Admit.
2. Following substantial question of law is formulated for decision of the appeal:
Whether documents Ex.PW-1/3 and/or Ex.PW-1/5 answer the description of a notice contemplated under Section 8 of the Rent Act, to effect increase in rent?
3. The appellant, M/s. Crack Detectives Private Limited, is in appeal against an order dated 4.4.2005 of learned Additional District Judge setting aside the judgment/order dated 13.8.2003 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, and remanding the case with a direction to decide the suit on merits.
4. The respondent filed a suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits in respect of property No. 17, 18/23/B-2 Market, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, against the appellant.
5. The appellant was a tenant under the respondent on the first floor of the aforesaid premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/-, excluding electricity and water charges since 1st of April, 1988. According to the respondent, he had an agreement with the appellant that the rent of the premises would be enhanced by 20% with effect from 1st of April, 1991. Besides, it was also agreed upon that there would be an increase in rent by another Rs. 500/-per month on account of replacement of cement sheet roof in a portion of tenanted premises at the cost of respondent. The respondent claims to have served a notice on the appellant expressing his intention to enhance the rent and asking the respondent to pay the rent @ Rs. 4,700/- per month with effect from 1st of April, 1991. The appellant, however, disputed that there was any agreement for enhancement of rent by 20% or for increase @ Rs. 500/- per month on account of replacement of cement sheet roof. Pleading that there could be no enhancement beyond Rs. 3,500/- per month, the appellant disowned its liability to pay the rent at enhanced rate of Rs. 4,700/- per month. The respondent served the appellant with a notice dated 11.9.1992 calling upon them to pay the rent @ Rs. 4,700/- per month with effect from 1st of April, 1991and also terminating their tenancy with effect from 30th of September, 1992, and requiring them to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to him by 30th of September, 1992.
6. On the pleadings of parties, in all, eight Issues were framed but the learned Civil Judge returned his findings on Issues 3 and 3.(a) only, which read to the following effect:
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of eviction or not? OPP.
3.(a) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 50 of DRC Act? OPD.
7. On examination of evidence on record, the learned Civil Judge returned a finding against the respondent holding that there was no increase in rent and the same remained at Rs. 3,500/-per month only. He, accordingly, held that since monthly rent of the property did not exceed Rs. 3,500/- per month, the tenancy continued to be governed by the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Rent Act') and, consequently, by virtue of Section 50 of the said Act, the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain the suit for recovery of possession stood ousted. The learned Civil Judge, thus, decided both the issues against the respondent and dismissed the suit as being barred by Section 50 of the Rent Act.
8. The respondent went in appeal against the dismissal of the suit whereupon the learned Additional District Judge reversed the finding of the learned Civil Judge to the effect that the suit was barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The first appellate court, on examination of evidence on record, returned a finding that there was an increase in the rent of the premises in view of a notice of his intention to increase the rent having been served on the appellant. She held that with the increase in the rent beyond the limit of Rs. 3,500/- per month, the tenancy was no longer to be governed by the provisions of the Rent Act.
9. I have heard the parties' counsel on either side.
10. The first appellate court, on the basis of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to find that there existed any agreement between the parties in regard to 20% increase in rent with effect from 1st of April, 1991 or for increase of Rs. 500/- per month on account of replacement of cement sheet roof. It, however, found that by virtue of a notice vide Ex.PW-1/5, an increase of rent by 10% in view of Section 6A and Section 8 of the Rent Act came to be effected raising the monthly rent in excess of Rs. 3,500/- per month and taking the tenancy out of the purview of provisions of the Rent Act.
11. In the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the respondent referred to Ex.PW-1/3 and Ex.PW-1/5, which, according to him, were in the nature of notice under Section 8 of the Rent Act for increase of rent. The learned Counsel for the appellant, however, contended that neither of these two documents satisfy the condition of a notice contemplated under Section 8 of the Rent Act.
12. For the benefit of reference, Section 8 of the Rent Act may be reproduced here. It reads in the following words:
8. Notice of increase of rent.--(1) Where a landlord wishes to increase the rent of any premises, he shall give the tenant notice of his intention to make the increase and in so far as such increase is lawful under this Act, it shall be due and recoverable only in respect of the period of the tenancy after the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the notice is given....
13. Revision of rent is legally permissible after every three years to the extent indicated in Section 6A of the Rent Act, which reads thus:
6.(A) Revision of rent.--Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the standard rent, or, where no standard rent is fixed under the provisions of this Act in respect of any premises, the rent agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, may be increased by ten per cent. every three years.
14. In terms of Section 8(1), the landlord is required to give the tenant a notice of his intention to make the increase in the rent. Ex.PW-1/5 is a letter dated 21.1.1992 from the respondent addressed to the Chairman of the appellant company making mention of an agreement whereby 20% increase in rent was to take effect from 1st of April, 1991. The letter also made mention of another increase by Rs. 500/- per month on account of replacement of cement sheet roof on a portion of the tenanted premises with puce roof by the respondent by virtue of an agreement between them in that regard. Accordingly, the appellant was told that it was liable to pay rent with effect from 1st of April, 1991 @ Rs. 4,700/- per month and a demand on that basis for payment of arrears with effect from 1.4.1991 to 31.1.1992 was raised. Evidently, the respondent sought increase in rent from 1st of April, 1991 on the basis of certain agreements with the appellant, which the appellant did not admit. The increase in rent was, thus, not sought by the respondent by virtue of provision for increase of rent by 10% every three years under Section 6A of the Rent Act and the letter Ex.PW-1/5 did not carry the respondent's intention in that regard. The letter Ex.PW-1/5, therefore, cannot be treated to be a notice for increase of rent as contemplated under Section 8 of the Rent Act.
15. Ex.PW-1/3 dated 11.9.1992 is a notice to the appellant company terminating its tenancy with effect from 30th of September, 1992. Simultaneously, the notice had also called upon the appellant to pay rent @ Rs. 4,700/- per month with effect from 1st of April, 1991. In this connection, it is significant to take note of para 4 of the notice, which reads thus:
4. That you were called upon and under the statutory obligation by amendment in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, are liable to pay rent @ Rs. 4,700/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.1991.
16. By reminding the appellant of its 'statutory obligation' under Rent Act and seeking an increase in rent, the respondent clearly indicated his intention to make the increase in the rent. Of course, in terms of Section 6A, an increase by 10% only could be allowed and liability of the appellant to pay the rent at increased rate accrued only after the expiry of 30 days from the date on which the notice was given to it.
17. Though the first appellate court wrongly treated the letter Ex.PW-1/5 as notice of intention on the part of respondent to increase the rent, as far as its finding to the effect that there was an increase by 10% is concerned, no fault can be found therewith. The notice Ex.PW-1/3 answered the description of a notice under Section 8 of the Rent Act and pursuant to such notice, an increase in rent by 10% stood effected raising the rate of rent in excess of Rs. 3,500/-. The learned Additional District Judge was, thus, justified in setting aside the judgment of the learned Civil Judge and sending back the case for a decision on merits.
18. Answering the substantial question as aforesaid and finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed with costs.