Delhi High Court
Shri Harish Dhingra vs Ms. Rosy Arora on 21 February, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 386/2013
% 21st February, 2014
SHRI HARISH DHINGRA ......Appellant
Through: Mr. P.P.Ahuja, Adv.
VERSUS
MS. ROSY ARORA ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. J.K.Sharma and Mr. Ajit Singh
Arora, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This first appeal is filed under Order 43 CPC against the order of the trial court dated 19.8.2013 by which an application under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC filed by the appellant/plaintiff/landlord was dismissed.
2. It is settled law that an order under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC directing payment of rent can only be passed if there exists ingredients of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and that there have to be admissions with respect to the rate of rent. Of course, in a particular case, even if there is no express admission, implied admissions in the form of admitted rent agreement or rent receipts can be looked into.
FAO 386/2013 Page 1 of 2
3. In the present case, no rent agreement exists. No rent receipts also exist. The payment which is relied upon is made by cheques and the same is also of a lumpsum amount on certain occasions. In any case, what is the rate of rent i.e Rs.11,000/- as pleaded by the appellant-plaintiff or Rs. 3000/- as pleaded by the respondent is a disputed question of fact which requires trial. Once there is a dispute question of fact which requires trial, jurisdiction under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC cannot be invoked.
4. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 19.8.2013 and the appeal is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
FEBRUARY 21, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
FAO 386/2013 Page 2 of 2