Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1) The appellant, Smt.Brahma Devi has raised one important question as to "whether the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit for grant of decree of ejectment of the appellant from the premises after the area was notified as unbanised/developed area". Since the area in question where the suit property is situated had been urbanised hence the Civil Courts jurisdiction was hit by the provisions of Section 50(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short Drc Act). Secondly the First Appellate Court did not take cognizance rather ignored the fact of the decree/ judgment passed in Suit No.300/78 decided on 21st July,1979, whereby it was held that present respondent was not the owner of the suit property. Hence that decision operates as resjudicata and the present suit ought to have been dismissed on this ground. Finally in order to terminate the tenancy notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act ought to have been issued. Having not done so the suit of ejectment was not maintainable.

(2) To appreciate the contentions raised by the appellant, brief and relevant facts of the case are that the respondent Smt.Krishna Devi claimed herself to be the owner and landlady of the suit premises. This appellant had taken, the premises in question on rent in the year 1972 on a monthly rent of Rs.40.00 . She had been paying the rent to one Shri Ram Chander. Present respondent filed three set of suits against one Shri Sohan Lal and the present appellant Smt.Brahma Devi. Since all the suits raised common questions of law and facts hence disposed of by a common judgment. Suit for possession by the respondent were decreed against the present appellant as well as Shri Sohan Lal. Resondent's suit for recovery of arrears of rent against the present appellant was also decreed. In all those cases it was the assertion of the present respondent that she was the owner landlady of propety No.WZ-118, Plot No.G-21-B, Palam Enclave, New Delhi. That she had purchased the same from Shri Dharam Dev Solanki who in turn had purchased it from Shri Jhaman Lal and Shri Ram Chander. Appeal preferred by the present appellant against those decrees has also been dismissed. There is thus concurrent finding that Smt.Krishna Devi, the present respondent is the landlady of the suit premises. That the appellant is tenant in this premises of which Smt.Krishna Devi is the landlady. That the suit premises is not covered under the Drc Act. It is against these concurrent findings of fact and law that present appeal had been preferred. It is the contention of the appellant before the Court that respondent was not owner of this premises. It was so held in Suit No.300/78 decided on 21st July, 1979. That decision would operate as resjudicata. The Courts below wrongly decided the issue of resjudicata against the appellant. Similarly the issue of maintainability of the suit on erroneous presumption has been decided in favour of the present respondent.

(4) The second limb of Mr.Sarvesh Bisaria's arguments that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit because of the Notification of July,1987 declaring the area where property in question is situated as urbanised area. Hence the Drc Act automatically came into operation. According to Mr.Bisaria once an area is declared urbanised the Civil Court looses its jurisdiction. Repelling this argument Mr.R.N.Goswami, appearing for the respondent contended that the Notification dated 30th July,1987 does not apply retrospectively. The suit was filed in August,1980 i.e. prior to coming in force of this. Notification. Secondly, this Notification has neither been published under the Municipal Corporation Act nor under the Drc Act. In the absence of any separate notification under the Drg Act the provision of said Act would not automatically apply. A mere Notification declaring the unauthorised colony as development area would not attract the provisions of Drc Act. The reading of the Notification dated 30th July,1987 clearly show that this was issued for the purpose of declaring 155 unauthorised colonies as development area. It nowhere says that these development areas would be covered by the Drc Act. Similary, the second Notification dated 24th October, 1994 is also of no help to the appellant. The First Appellate Court discussed the implications of this Notification dated 24th 0ctober,1994 in its judgment. The second Notification of 1994 simply says that those rural areas would cease to be so on the issuance of this Notification. It nowhere indicates that these would be covered by the Drc Act. I find force in these submissions of Mr.R.N.Goswami, because even if an area is declared to be urbanised still as per the proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section I of Drc Act, Central Government has to issue a separate Notification covering that urbanised area under the Drc Act. The proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section I of Drc Act reads as under :- "PROVIDED that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend this Act or any provision thereof, to any other urban area included within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or exclude any area from the operation of this Act or any provision thereof."

(5) Reading of this proviso makes it absolutely clear that a separate Notification in the Official Gazette extending the applicability of Drc Act was a must. Having not placed on record any such Notification issued by the Central Government in the Official Gezette as required under the proviso of Sub Section 2 of Section I, it cannot be said that Drc Act became applicable in this case. It would not be out of place to mention that counsel for the appellant conceded before the First Appellate Court that the area in question has not been covered under the Drc Act. This is so recorded by the First Appellate Court in para 36 of his judgment. In fact the appellant did not challenge this aspect before the First Appellate Court rather he gave up this issue. In view of what has been stated in para 36 of the judgment, appellant now in second appeal can not rack up the same issue over again. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that once the Drc Act is made applicable then all proceedings including the execution proceedings would come to an end before the Civil Court. But that is not the case in hand. Therefore, reliance by Mr.Sarvesh Bisaria on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Parshad Vs. Onkar Nath, 1970 R.C.R. 279 is of no help to him because as already observed above, it has been conclusively proved on record that Drc Act has not been made applicable to the area in question. Notification as required under proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section I of Drc Act by the Central Government has riot been issued covering this area.