Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)Sewa International Fasions vs Suman Kathpalia & Ors. on 13 August, 1999
(h) that in the judgment of this Court in Sewa International
Fashions Vs. Smt. Suman Kathpalia the maintenance charges were
held to be part of the rent because it was so accepted by the tenant
RFA No.350/2013 Page 9 of 15
before the Trial Court and the said judgment cannot thus be held to be
a precedent on the said aspect;
Inder Vijay Singh vs N.D.M.C on 16 April, 1995
(ii) Inder Vijay Singh Vs. NDMC (1995) Rajdhani Law Reporter
254, where a Division Bench of this Court included the payment of
hire charges of air conditioners in rent for the purposes of determining
the rateable value and house tax of the premises;
M/S Sewa International Fashions & Ors vs Meenakshi Anand on 18 January, 2012
(iv) judgment dated 18th January, 2012 in RFA No.40/2012 supra
titled M/s. Sewa International Fashions Vs. Meenakshi Anand
where also by computing maintenance charges to be rent, the premises
were held to be outside the ambit of the Rent Act;
Abdul Kader vs G.D. Govindaraj (D) By Lrs on 24 April, 2002
4. The appeal came up before this Court first on 30th July, 2013. The
only argument urged by the senior counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant
was that though the appellant/defendant/tenant had before the Trial Court
controverted that the rent of the premises was in excess of Rs.3,500/- per
RFA No.350/2013 Page 2 of 15
month but the learned ADJ had wrongly held the rent to be in excess of
Rs.3,500/- per month. It was the contention of the senior counsel for the
appellant/defendant/tenant, i) that the admitted position was that the
appellant/defendant/tenant for the said flat was paying a rent of Rs.2,645/-
per month to the respondent/plaintiff/landlord and a sum of Rs.1,224/-
towards maintenance charges to the Welfare Association of the Owners &
Occupants of the multistoried building in which the said flat is situated, on
account of maintenance charges; ii) that the learned ADJ however has
erroneously held the said maintenance charges of Rs.1,224/- per month to be
part of rent and by adding the same to the monthly rent of Rs.2,645/-, held
the rent to be Rs.3,869/- per month, taking the premises outside the purview
of the Rent Act; iii) that though the learned ADJ in the impugned judgment,
to hold the maintenance charges to be part of rent had relied upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kader Vs. G.D. Govindaraj (2002)
5 SCC 51 but there was a dichotomy of views in this respect in the
orders/judgments of this Court in RFA No.40/2012 and in RSA
No.251/2008. On the said contention of the senior counsel for the
appellant/defendant/tenant, notice of the appeal was issued and the Trial
Court record as well as the files of RFA No.40/2012 and RSA No.251/2008
RFA No.350/2013 Page 3 of 15
requisitioned and subject to the appellant/defendant/tenant depositing the
entire arrears of mesne profits/damages together with interest thereon in this
Court, execution was stayed.
Standard Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Gyan Chand Jain And Anr. on 30 January, 2002
(vi) Standard Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Gyan Chand Jain 97
(2002) DLT 290 where service charges payable by the tenant to the
landlord were held to be part of the rent and accordingly the premises
were held outside the ambit of the Rent Act;
Annick Chaymotty @ Devayani vs Prem Mohini Mehra on 3 September, 2001
(vii) Annick Chaymotty @ Devayani Vs. Prem Mohini Mehra 95
(2002) DLT 312 where the amount besides rent being paid by the
tenant to the landlord towards additional facilities provided in the
premises, was held to be included in the rent and the premises were
accordingly held outside the Rent Act.
Mohammad Ahmad & Anr vs Atma Ram Chauhan & Ors on 13 May, 2011
(q) attention is invited to Mohammad Ahmad Vs. Atma Ram
Chauhan (2011) 7 SCC 755 to contend that landlords should get
actual rent out of which nothing would be deductible and, property
tax, water tax, maintenance charges and electricity charges shall be
payable only by the tenant.
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Smt.Anup Kaur on 28 April, 2011
(i) similarly in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. supra also, the
maintenance charges were held to be part of rent owing to the
admission of the tenant;