Delhi District Court
Sh. Suhail Anwar Rizvi @ John vs Sh. Sharfuddin S/O Sh. Abdul Rashid on 3 March, 2014
In the Court of Shri Naresh Kumar Laka
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller
District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Petition No. M (44)- 10/09
Unique I.D. No. 02402C0052292009
In the matter of:
Sh. Suhail Anwar Rizvi @ John
S/o Late Islam Rizvi
R/o 144/28, Khureji Khas, Delhi 110051
.....Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Sharfuddin S/o Sh. Abdul Rashid
R/o H. no. 144, Khureji Khas, Delhi 110051
....Respondent
Date of institution : 06.02.2009
Date of final arguments : 20.02.2014
Date of decision : 03.03.2014
Final Order : Petition Allowed
Petition under Section 44 of the
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
JUDGEMENT
Brief facts of the case The present petition is filed by the petitioner who is a tenant in the property in question under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [for short "the Act"] seeking permission of this court to carry out certain repairs. The respondent who is the landlord Case No.M (44) 10/09 Page No. 1 of 5 contested this petition. Accordingly a trial was held and after conclusion of the trial, a judgment was passed by my Ld. Predecessor on 13.09.11 whereby the petition of the tenant was allowed. Thereafter the respondent preferred an appeal against the said judgment and as per order of Sh. P. S. Teji, (Ld. District & Sessions Judge, East) dated 05.05.2012, this case was remanded back by making following observations :
"Perusal of impunged judgment shows that Ld. ARC allowed the petition of the respondent /tenant by allowing to carry out repair at his own cost in the room in his possession. There appears force in this contention of the appellant. The impunged judgment is not clear as to what type of repair the tenant has been allowed to carry out. Therefore, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to remand back the case with the direction to Ld. Trial court to decide afresh the question as to what repairs, respondent/tenant has been allowed to carry out.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, matter is remanded back to Trial Court concerned to give his findings afresh on the above point."
2. Accordingly this case was taken up again and the petitioner filed certain photographs along with an affidavit.
Case No.M (44) 10/09 Page No. 2 of 5Respondent was also given an opportunity to file counter affidavit. At the request of counsel for respondent, the petitioner was also allowed to be cross examined.
3. I have heard Ld. Counsels for parties and perused the record.
4. In the previous examination, the petitioner specifically deposed as under :
"That since the tenanted premises is old one and with the passage of time, the roof of the tenanted premises started showing oldness and the same has caved in from a number of places and due to the above said reason, the deponent along with his family members i.e. his wife and three school going children could not sleep inside the tenanted room due to fear of its collapse at any point of time and even forced to sleep in the open during rainy season as well as in the winter season."
5. In the latest affidavit Ex. PW1/A, it is further deposed that the petitioner/deponent has taken photographs of the ceiling of the tenanted premises which show the existing condition of the ceiling of the tenanted premises. The counsel for respondent specifically argued that despite giving ample opportunity the petitioner did not lead any sufficient evidence to specify as to what is the nature of the repair Case No.M (44) 10/09 Page No. 3 of 5 to be done. He also further stated that the petitioner has not disclosed the particular area, its dimension and the nature of the repair required.
6. No doubt, the petitioner has not specifically pointed out every minute details about the area as well as dimension and the nature of the repair to be performed but from the previous petition, the previous deposition as well as latest affdiavit Ex. PW1/A and the six photographs placed on record, this court can come to the conclusion that the petitioner is specifically seeking repair of the ceiling/roof of the property in question. The six photographs placed on record also clearly show that there are major damages on various parts of the roof/ceiling of the room in question.
7. The DRC Act has been enacted specifically for the purpose of harmonious relationship between the landlord and tenant and to give certain specific protection to the tenant. Section 44 is one of the pieces of such legislation. The Section 44 (1) of DRC Act specifically states that every landlord shall be bound to keep the premises in good and tenantable repairs. It further provides that if the landlord neglects or fails to make a necessary repairs, the tenant has a right to take appropriate steps in this case. In this case, the tenant has already admitted that he will bear the entire cost towards the repairs to be done in the property in question and as such in terms of Section 44 (3) of the DRC Act, this court can permit the tenant to make essential repairs. Accordingly the petition is allowed and tenant / petitioner is permitted to make repairs of the roof/ceiling of Case No.M (44) 10/09 Page No. 4 of 5 the tenanted premises which are essential in nature at his own cost. There is need to file the estimate for details of the cost as the same is admittedly borne by the tenant/petitioner without claiming any amount from the respondent. However in order to avoid any subsequent dispute between the parties, the petitioner is directed to take photographs of the portion which is repaired by him before start of the repair and after completion of the repairs. The petition is accordingly allowed. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 03.03.2014 (Naresh Kumar Laka) Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Case No.M (44) 10/09 Page No. 5 of 5