Delhi District Court
Smt. Babli Sharma vs Mr. Deepak Kumar Sharma on 8 November, 2021
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SAUMYA CHAUHAN, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE /RENT
CONTROLLER (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLET030004612014
CS No.8003/16
Smt. Babli Sharma
W/o Late Sh. Sushil Kumar Sharma
R/o House No.52, Gali No.12,
Sarojini Park, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi110031 ....... Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Deepak Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Ashok Kumar Sharma
52, Sarojini Park, Main Road,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi110031.
Also At
Mr. Deepak Kumar Sharma,
S/o Late Ashok Kumar Sharma,
J3/31 Kishan Kunj Ext., Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi110092 ......Defendant
Date of Institution : 25.02.2014
Date on which reserved for judgment : 13.09.2021
Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 08.11.2021
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, the court shall decide the present suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits.
2. The briefly stated facts as per the plaint are that the plaintiff is absolute owner of the property i.e. one shop ad measuring 7 ½ X 10, part of property no.52 situated at CS No. 8003/16 Page 1 of 16 Sarojini Park, Shastri Nagar, Delhi110031 (hereinafter referred to as 'suit premises'). It is averred that father of defendant late Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma had approached Ms. Bhagwati Devi, the predecessor of the plaintiff and requested her to let out the suit premises to him. Accordingly, the suit premises was let out to the defendant's father at a monthly rent of Rs.300/ per month. A rent deed dt.18.04.1986 specifying the terms and conditions of the tenancy was executed between the parties. Though the tenancy was determined by efflux of time, but the tenant continued to hold over to the tenanted premises by making payment of rent as agreed. Defendant's father died in the year 1999 and thereafter the defendant stepped into the shoes of his father and started paying the rent accordingly.
3. It has been averred that in the year 2005, the defendant tried to get an electricity connection in the suit premises in his name, which was not permitted by Discom authorities on basis of the objections raised by plaintiff's family. The tenancy continued till the year 2007 and then the ownership of the premises came to Sh. Sushil Kumar S/o Sh. Kishori Lal by way of family partition vide Partition Deed dt.07.02.2007. During the year 2007 to 2009, the defendant had been paying the agreed rate of rent of Rs.5,000/ per month to Sh. Sushil Kumar. However, Sh. Sushil Kumar expired on 29.06.2009, leaving behind the plaintiff and his son Sh.Gaurav Sharma as the legal heirs. A Surviving members certificate was issued by Executive Magistrate, Gandhi Nagar, dated 12.02.2013. The plaintiff become the absolute and sole owner of the property by virtue of the duly registered Relinquishment deed dated 09.03.2010 in her favour by Sh. Gaurav Sharma.
4. It has been averred that the plaintiff has been asking the defendant to vacate the suit premises as she requires the same for running her own business. However, the defendant has failed to do so. It has been submitted that the rent at the time of death of Sh.Sushil Kumar was Rs.5,000/ per month. However, the defendant has failed to make regular payment and is liable to pay arrears of rent of Rs.1,80,000/ from February 2011 till January 2014. The plaintiff had terminated the tenancy vide legal notice dated 20.01.2014 CS No. 8003/16 Page 2 of 16 under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act, duly served upon the defendant. However, despite that the defendant has failed to vacate the suit premises and pay the arrears of rent. Hence, the present suit.
5. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendant wherein he vehemently denied the contentions of the plaintiff. In the preliminary objections, the defendant has alleged that the the plaintiff has no locus to file the present suit and that the present suit is barred under Section 50 Delhi Rent Control Act as the defendant's father was inducted as a tenant in the suit property in 1986 at the rent of Rs.300/ per month. Further, the suit property is not properly valued. It has been further alleged that the suit is barred by Section 66 and 67 of the Limitation Act as the suit has been filed beyond 12 years of defendant occupying the suit property after the death of his father on 22.08.2000.
6. The defendant has admitted that her father late Sh. Ashok Kumar was a tenant in respect of the suit property. However, as per the defendant, the rate of rent was Rs.300/ per month since the year 1986. His father has expired on 22.08.2000.
7. It has been averred that Smt. Bhagawati Devi, the owner/landlord of the property had filed an Eviction Petition against defendant's father under Section 14 (1) (a) &
(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act, bearing Eviction Petition no.134/91, which was dismissed on merits vide judgment dt.30.07.1998 by the then Ld. ARC. An appeal against the said judgment was filed by Smt. Bhagawati Devi vide RCA no.140/98 in the A.R.C. Tribunal, Shahdara which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 23.02.2001.
8. It has been further submitted that Smt. Bhagwati Devi died during the pendency of the above stated appeal and her legal heirs namely Smt. Pushpa, Sh.Vinod Kumar, Sh. Sushil Kumar, Sh.Harish Kumar and Sh. Manoj Kumar and the daughters of late Sh. Kishori Lal were impleaded being her LRs. On the death of Sh. Ashok Kumar CS No. 8003/16 Page 3 of 16 Sharma, his legal heirs namely Kumari Meenakshi, Master Deepak, Kumari Poonam and Master Gora were impleaded as Lrs in the said appeal. The tenancy of Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma has been inherited by said LRs accordingly. It has been denied that the tenanted premises has come to the ownership and title of Sh. Sushil Kumar by way of family partition. The partition deed relied upon by the plaintiff is alleged to be illegal. It has been further denied that the defendant has been making payment of rent at the mutually agreed rate of Rs.5,000/ to Sh. Sushil Kumar from 2007 to 2009. Per contra, after the dismissal of the Eviction Petition filed by Smt. Bhagawati Devi and the appeal, the defendant continued making payment of rent initially at the rate of Rs.300/ per month and subsequently by 10% increase after every three years. Presently, the rate of rent is Rs.484/ per month which is being paid to Smt. Pushpa, one of the LRs of Smt. Bhagwati Devi. It is submitted that Smt. Pushpa has been accepting the rent through money order upto October 2013. However, no receipt or acknowledgment has been issued by her towards the same.
9. The defendant has denied that plaintiff is the sole owner of the property and has alleged that the Relinquishment Deed by Sh. Gaurav Sharma is invalid. He has further alleged that all the LRs of Smt. Bhagwati have caused harassment to the defendant. They never allowed the defendant to obtain electricity connection in his name. They also demanded rent from the defendant separately. It has been vehemently denied that the rate of rent of tenanted premises is Rs.5,000/ per month and the defendant is not paying the same.
10. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant wherein she denied the allegations made by the defendant against her. She has further reiterated her averments made in the plaint.
11. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 04.08.2014: CS No. 8003/16 Page 4 of 16
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the monthly rental of the tenanted premises is Rs.5,000/?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the tenanted premises?OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of arrears of rent for the period from February, 2011 to January 2014 and if so at what rate and for what period?OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest and if so at what rate and for what period on the rental arrears, if any?OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mesne profit/damages and if so at what rate and for what period?OPP
6. Whether the suit is barred by Section 50 DRC Act?
7. Whether the suit is barred for nonjoinder of necessary parties?OPD
8. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is time barred?OPD
9. Whether the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?OPD
10. Relief.
12. The matter was listed for plaintiff's evidence. To prove her case, the plaintiff entered the witness box as PW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1. She has reiterated the averments made in her plaint and relied upon the following documents: 1 Site plan of the property is Ex.PW1/A.
2. Photocopy of Rent deed i.e Ex.PW1/B (OSR).
3.Copy of agreement cum partition deed dt.07.02.2007 is Ex.PW1/C(colly.)(OSR).
CS No. 8003/16 Page 5 of 164. Photocopy of death certificate of Sh.Sushil Kumar is Ex.PW1/D.
5. Copy of surviver certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate Shahdara is Ex.PW1/E (OSR).
6. The copy of Relinquishment Deed dt.09.03.2010 is Ex.PW1/F (OSR).
7 Legal notice is Ex.PW1/I alongwith postal receipt which are Ex.PW1/J and Ex.PW1/K and original returned envelops are Ex.PW1/G and Ex.PW1/H.
13. During crossexamination, PW1 stated that Smt. Bhagawati Devi is the owner of the property. She had five sons and five daughters. The witness had no knowledge about the suit filed by Smt. Bhagwati Devi against Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma, defendant's father. She could not tell whether the suit filed by Smt. Bhagwati Devi against Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma was dismissed on 30.07.1998 by the court of Ms. Ravinder Kaur, the then Ld. ARC, Tis Hazari Delhi. She has also no knowledge as to whether any appeal was preferred by Smt. Bhagwati Devi which was also dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller Tribunal, Kakardooma presided over by Sh.R.L.Chugh vide judgment dated 23.02.2001.
14. PW1 stated that Smt. Bhagwati Devi passed away on 24.01.2000. She admitted that Vinod, Sushil, Harish and Manoj and daughter Pushpa Devi become party in the appeal on the demise of Smt. Bhagwati Devi. She also admitted that in the appeal, on demise of Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma, his daughters namely Meenakshi, Kumari Gora and Poonam and his son Deepak i.e. the defendant became party. She could not precisely tell whether Ashok Kumar Sharma had passed away on 22.08.2000.
15. Witness stated that Pushpa Devi is her nanad. She is alive and lives with her. She deposed that she has been looking after the shop i.e the tenanted premises for last CS No. 8003/16 Page 6 of 16 25 years. She admitted that the shop has not been whitewashed or repaired for last 25 years and that there is no electricity in the shop for last 15 years. She admitted that there is no site plan attached with the Agreementcumpartition deed which is Ex.PW1/C. She further admitted that Partition Deed Ex.PW1/C is not registered. She admitted that she never wrote to the defendant after the execution of the Partition Deed Ex.PW1/C, that the shop in question has come to her share. She denied the suggestion that Partition Deed Ex.PW1/C is not valid.
16. PW1 denied the suggestion that after the death of Smt. Bhagwati Devi her five sons and daughter became owners of the property no.52, Sarojini Park, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. She admitted that in the site plan Ex.PW1/A, except the red colour portion, the remaining property is constructed. The witness had no knowledge whether the ARC and Additional Rent Controller Tribunal of Sh.R.L.Chugh had fixed the rent of the shop in dispute at Rs.300/. The witness could not tell whether after dismissal of the appeal, Smt. Pushpa Sharma i.e. daughter of Smt. Bhagwati Devi did not personally accept the rent. She could not tell whether after dismissal of the appeal the rent was always tendered through money order. She could not tell whether the defendant used to send money order of Rs.484/ per month to Smt. Pushpa Sharma who used to accept the same till October, 2013. Pushpa Sharma never told the witness about her receiving the rent through money order. The witness had no knowledge about the legal notice dt.06.02.2001 issued by Pushpa Sharma and her four brothers, to the legal heirs of late Sh. Ashok Kumar. She could not tell whether defendant Deepak Sharma replied to the said legal notice vide reply dt.19.03.2001. She also had no knowledge about the reply dt.02.08.2001 issued by Roshan Lal being the legal guardian of the LRs of late Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma.
17. The witness stated that late Sh.Sushil Kumar Sharma took rent from the defendant after the partition. However, she could not recall the date, month and year when her husband used to take rent from defendant. She could not tell how many times her CS No. 8003/16 Page 7 of 16 husband had taken rent from the defendant. She voluntarily stated he used to take rent of Rs.5,000/ per month. Before the partition, her husband did not take rent from the defendant. The witness could not tell what was the rate of rent before partition.
18. The witness further stated that neither she nor her husband got the shop reconstructed on or after February, 2007. Her husband used to tell her that rent of shop in question is Rs.5,000/. The witness had no rent receipt of Rs.5,000/. In the house tax assessment also, it is not mentioned that the rate of rent of the shop is Rs.5,000/. She denied the suggestion that the shop is in dilapidated condition and that is why the defendant sits outside the shop.
19. The original rent deed Ex.PW1/B was given to her by Smt. Pushpa Sharma. She admitted that Pushpa Sharma used to deal with all the matters pertaining to the shop in question as well as the litigation. The witness could not tell from what specific amount, was the rent enhanced to Rs.5,000/. She denied the suggestion that the she is not the owner of shop in question. She further denied that the rate of rent was never Rs.5,000/ per month and that the present rate of rent is Rs.484/. She denied the suggestion that Smt. Pushpa Sharma refused to accept the rent w.e.f. November 2013. She admitted that the copy of the partition deed was not given to the defendant. The witness was not aware to whom the defendant paid rent and upto what period. However, she voluntarily stated that after 2007, defendant paid the rent to her husband at the rate of Rs.5000/ per month.
20. PW2 is Madhu Sudan, neighbor and acquaintance of the plaintiff. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which his Ex.PW2/A. He corroborated the testimony of the plaintiff and relied upon the documents filed by PW1. During crossexamination, the witness stated that he knows the plaintiff for last 35 years as they reside in the same vicinity. The present suit has been filed as the defendant was not paying rent to the plaintiff. He admitted that shop was not let out in his presence nor any rent was fixed in his presence.
CS No. 8003/16 Page 8 of 16The witness was not aware of any previous litigation concerning the suit property. However, he deposed that the plaintiff became owner of the suit property by virtue of family settlement/partition. He admitted that he was not a witness to the said family settlement/partition. PW2 was not aware whether the defendant is a tenant in the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs.484/ and voluntarily stated that he has been told that the monthly rent is Rs.5,000/.
21. PW3 Manoj Kumar is the brotherinlaw of the plaintiff. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which his Ex.PW3/A. He corroborated the testimony of the plaintiff and relied upon the documents filed by PW1.
22. During crossexamination, PW3 stated that his mother late Smt. Bhagwati was the owner of the suit property. He had no knowledge about any case filed by his mother against Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma regarding the shop in question. He did not know that in the eviction petition filed by her mother against Ashok Kumar Sharma, he too had become an LR after his mother's death. He had no knowledge whether any notice was given by him to the defendant or his father. He did not know that after death of his mother, Sh.Ashok Kumar Sharma continued to pay rent to his sister Pushpa Devi. He also did not know that rent was being paid through money order to his sister. He admitted that Ms. Pushpa Devi is alive and residing with the plaintiff. He denied that the shop in question is in a dilapidated condition.
23. PW3 admitted that the rent agreement Ex.PW1/B was not prepared in his presence. He admitted that the family settlement Ex.PW1/C was not executed between all his siblings. He further admitted that the family settlement is not registered before the Sub Registrar. However, the document was notarized on 25.05.2007. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW1/C is an invalid document as it has not been executed by all the brothers and sisters, nor is the same registered. He admitted that the suit premises does not have CS No. 8003/16 Page 9 of 16 electricity for last 15 years. The witness stated that the defendant's father never paid any rent to the landlord in his presence and he has no knowledge about the rate of rent paid by defendant's father. He voluntarily stated that defendant paid rent to the plaintiff in his presence. However, the monthly rent payable by the defendant was not settled in his presence. The witness has no knowledge that the initial rate of rent was Rs.300/ and it was increased after the death of Sh.Ashok Kumar Sharma to Rs.484/. He had no knowledge whether or not defendant had paid rent to his sister Puhspa Devi upto October 2013. He voluntarily stated that the Pushpa Devi had no concern with the suit shop.
24. PW3 stated that the defendant has paid the rent of Rs.5000/to the plaintiff in his presence on 23 occasion, once in February March 2010 and in January 2011. He has no personal knowledge as to how the monthly rent was increased from Rs.300/ to Rs.5,000/. He voluntarily stated that there must have been mutual settlement between plaintiff and the defendant. He denied the suggestion that the rent of the suit shop is Rs.484/ per month and not Rs.5,000/.
25. After the plaintiff concluded her evidence, the matter was listed for defendant's evidence. To lead DE, the defendant entered the witness box as DW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW1/A. He has relied the following documents:
1. Photocopy of petition under Section 14 (a) and (b) by Smt. Bhagwati Devi is Mark A.
2. Certified copy of statement of AW1 Sh. Vinod Kumar recorded in the said eviction petition is Ex.DW1/2.
3. Certified copy of statement of Smt. Bhagwati Devi is Ex.DW1/3.
4. Certified copy of judgment dt.30.07.1998 in Eviction petition no.134/91 is Ex.DW1/4.
5. Certified copy of judgment dt.23.02.2001 in RC no.140/98 is Ex.DW1/5.
CS No. 8003/16 Page 10 of 166. Certified copy of the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC dt.18.04.2000 to implead the LRs of Bhagwati Devi is Ex.DW1/6 and the certified copy of amended memo of parties is Ex.DW1/7.
7. Certified copy of the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC dt.18.04.2000 to implead the LRs of deceased Ashok Kumar is Ex.DW1/8 and the copy of amended memo of parties dt.09.01.2001 is Ex.DW1/9.
8. Copy of legal notice dt.06.02.2001 sent on behalf of Smt. Pushpa Devi, Vinod Kumar, Sushil Kumar, Harish Kumar and Manoj Kumar all children of late Sh. Kishori Lal claiming that rent is Ex.DW1/10.
9. Reply of the LRs of late Sh. Ashok Kumar, including the defendant, sent through Sh. Roshan Lal is Ex.DW1/11.
10. Legal notice dt.02.08.2001 sent by Sh. Roshan Lal to Smt. Puhspa Devi is Ex.DW1/12.
11.Postal receipt and the UPC receipts are Ex.DW1/13 and Ex.DW1/14 respectively and AD card is Ex.DW1/15.
12. Certificate issued for delivery of money order by the postal authority dt. 13.10.2001 and 18.10.2001 are Ex.DW1/16 and Ex.DW1/17 respectively.
13. Postal receipts for issuing the money order are Ex.DW1/18 and Ex.DW1/19.
14. The acknowledgment of receiving of money order dt 31.12.2013 is Ex.DW1/20. Other receipts of sending the money order are Ex.DW1/21 (colly.).
26. In crossexamination, DW1 admitted that his father late Sh.Ashok Kumar was tenant of late Smt. Bhagwati Devi. He admitted that Ex.PW1/B was signed by his father. He denied the suggestion that his father expired in the year 1999. His father died on 22.08.200.
CS No. 8003/16 Page 11 of 16The witness admitted that there is no document on record to show that the LRs of Smt. Bhagwati Devi had requested him to pay the rent to Smt. Pushpa Sharma, nor could he produced any such document in court.
27. The witness admitted that he has not mentioned in his WS that plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property. He admitted that there is no electricity connection in the suit shop since the year 1993. He denied the suggestion that he is not carrying out any work at the suit property as the same is not in his possession. Witness was shown the photographs of the suit property which are Ex.DW1/P1 and Ex.DW1/P2. He denied the suggestion that from the photographs, it is clear that the shop remains closed. He stated that no rent receipt of Rs.300/ per month has been placed on record by him. He further admitted that no rent receipt as issued by the landlord acknowledging the rent of Rs.484/ per month is on record. However, he denied the suggestion that he has no such rent receipt as the rent was never Rs.484/.
28. The witness was not aware whether any partition had taken place between the LRs of late Smt. Bhagwati Devi. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff is the landlord and owner of the suit property. He had not received any legal notice from the plaintiff. He admitted that he had sent rent only through money order and never deposited same in the court. He denied the suggestion that he has wrongly tendered rent to Puhspa Devi though money order. He denied the suggestion that the rate of rent of the suit property is Rs.5000/ per month and he is legally bound to pay Rs.5000/ per month to the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that rent was increased to Rs.5000/ per month and he started rendering the rent at the rate of Rs.5000/ to Sh. Sushil Kumar. He admitted that whenever he and his father paid the rent, it was in cash. Voluntarily stated that he used to make the payment of rent by cash at post office. He admitted that landlord never issued any rent receipt at any point of time. He voluntarily stated that his landlord is Ms.Phspa Devi and whenever he demanded rent receipts from her and the successor landlord, they had only given him the instructions CS No. 8003/16 Page 12 of 16 to tender rent by post and keep postal receipts. He admitted that he has not filed any rent deposit petition in any court against the LRs of Smt. Bhagwati Devi. He denied the suggestion that he is liable to pay Rs.10,000/per month as use and occupation charges to the plaintiff.
29. DW2 is the judicial Assistant, Record room Sessions, Karkardooma courts, who had brought the summoned record i.e. original appeal in RCA/140/98 titled as Bhagwati Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar. The certified copy of the application under Order 22 Rule 4 r/w Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC alongwith affidavit of Smt.Pushpa Sharma is Ex.DW2/A (colly.3 pages). The amended memo of parties dt.22.07.2000, which is already Ex.DW1/7 was marked as Ex.DW2/B. Amended memo of parties dt.09.01.2001 which was already Ex.DW1/9 was marked as Ex.DW2/C. The copy of application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC r/w Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC dt.18.04.200 alongwith Ex.DW1/C was against exhibited as ExDW2/D (colly.3 pages). The order dt.23.02.2001 passed by the then ARCT, KKD courts, Shahdara, certified copy of which is already Ex.DW1/5 was now Ex.DW2/E. in crossexamination, the witness admitted that he has no personal knowledge of the case.
30. Thereafter, DE was closed.
31. I have heard the oral final submissions made by Learned counsels for both the parties and perused the entire record carefully. The issue wise findings of the court are as below:
32. Issue no.6 " Whether the suit is barred by Section 50 DRC Act?"
CS No. 8003/16 Page 13 of 1633. This issue has been taken up for discussion prior to the other issues as the same is an issue of law and shall determine the jurisdiction of this court.
34. Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 reads that no civil court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to the fixation of standard rent in relation to any premises to which this act applies or to eviction of any tenant therefrom to any other matter which the Controller is empowered by or under this Act. Further, as per Section 3 (C) of the Act, the DRC Act is not applicable to premises, the monthly rent of which is more than Rs. 3500/. Hence, from a joint reading of Section 3 (C) DRC Act read with Section 50 DRC Act, it is clear that the jurisdiction of a civil court is barred if the rent of the suit property is below Rs.3500/.
35. It the case it hand, it has been admitted by both the parties that the rate of rent at the time of inception of tenancy was Rs.300/ per month. However, as per the plaintiff, the rate of rent was increased to Rs.5000/ per month after the tenanted premises came to the ownership of her husband late Sh. Sushil Kumar in 2007. She has deposed that from 2007 to 2009, the defendant was making payment of rent at the rate of Rs.5,000/ per month to Sh. Sushil Kumar. After the death of Sh.Suhil Kumar on 29.06.2009, the plaintiff became the owner of the property by way of Relinquishment deed dt.09.03.2010.
36. However, the plaintiff has not placed on record a single document to prove that the rate of rent was at any point of time was agreed as Rs.5000/ per month. No counter foil of rent receipt or any subsequent rent agreement between the defendant and her husband has been placed on record by the plaintiff. Infact, it appears that the averment of the plaintiff regarding enhancement of rent to Rs.5000/ is an after thought and a story cooked up by the plaintiff to bring the case within the jurisdiction of this court and within limitation.
CS No. 8003/16 Page 14 of 1637. PW1 has stated that she was told by her husband that the rate of rent of shop in dispute is Rs.5,000/. She also deposed that the defendant was paying rent @ Rs. 5000/ to her husband from 20072009. However, there is no document to show that the rent was being tendered at Rs.5,000/ by the defendant to her husband at any point of time. The plaintiff has admitted that she has no rent receipt of Rs.5,000/, nor the rate of rent has been mentioned in the house tax assessment. She could not recall the date, month and year when her husband had taken rent from the defendant. She also could not tell how many times her husband took rent from the defendant.
38. Further, while PW1 has contended that since 2007, her husband was taking rent from the defendant, DW1 has contended that he was paying rent at the rate of Rs.484/ per month to Smt. Pushpa Devi till October 2013. PW1 has deposed that Puhspa Devi is her nanad and is living with her. Hence she could have produced and examined Smt. Puhspa Devi as a witness to prove that Puhspa Devi was not accepting rent from the defendant since 2007 or that the rate of rent was not Rs.484/. However, the plaintiff did not examine Smt Pushpa Devi as PW for the reason best known to her. Be that as it may, it has arisen a doubt in the mind of the court that Smt. Pushpa Devi was not examined as her testimony might not have been favourable to the case of the plaintiff.
39. From the documents on record its stands proved that till the year 2001 the rate of rent of Rs.300/ per month, as is also admitted by the parties. However, there is no record or documents whatsoever to show that the rate of rent was enhanced to Rs.5000 by the plaintiff or her husband at any point of time before filing of the present suit.
40. Though the onus to prove this issue was initially on the defendant, however, the court is of the considered opinion that since it was the plaintiff who has sought the jurisdiction of this court and has not placed on record any document to show that the rate of rent was Rs.5,000/ per month, the onus was on the plaintiff to prove this issue.
CS No. 8003/16 Page 15 of 1641. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus placed on her. It has not been proved that the rate of rent of the suit property was Rs.5,000/ per month. To the contrary, the last rate of rent as admitted by the parties was Rs.300/ per month. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction of this court is barred under Section 50 Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Hence, this court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit.
42. This issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
43. Since issue no.6 has been decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff and it has been observed by the court that jurisdiction of this court to try and adjudicate this suit is barred under Section 50 DRC Act, there is no requirement to record findings on the remaining issues. The remaining issues are decided accordingly.
44. Relief: In view of the above findings of this court, the present suit is dismissed.
45. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
46. File be consigned to record room after completing the necessary formalities.
Digitally signed by SAUMYA SAUMYA CHAUHAN
CHAUHAN
Announced in the open Court
Date: 2021.11.08
16:47:31 -0300
on this 8th November, 2021 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN)
SCJcumRC, East
CS No. 8003/16 Page 16 of 16