Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C.R.P.No. 158/2014 & CM No. 18251/2014 10th November, 2014
SH. MALKHAN SINGH ......Revisionist/Petitioner
Through: None.
Through: None.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The challenge by means of this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 22.9.2014 by which an application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was dismissed. The subject suit is a suit for possession filed by the petitioner/plaintiff claiming that he is the owner of the suit property bearing Municipal No. 241, Block D-5, Sultanpuri, Delhi-110086. Respondent no.1/defendant no.1 is pleaded to be a tenant in the suit property. 2014:DHC:5839
2. In Delhi civil courts have jurisdiction to try the suit for possession with respect to the relationship of landlord and tenant either when the rent is above Rs.3500/- per month or premises are not situated within the area of operation of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In the present case, the latter of the two aspects which is in issue inasmuch as petitioner/plaintiff claims that the suit property is not covered under the area of operation of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
3. The impugned order in para 3 reproduces the interim application filed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, and nowhere in the same there is an averment that the suit be decreed because admittedly the premises are outside the area to which the Delhi Rent Control Act applies. I may also note that the petitioner/plaintiff has not filed before this Court the issues framed in the suit inasmuch as even the copy of the plaint filed does not show that in any para thereof possession is claimed from the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 on the ground that tenancy is not covered under the area of operation of the Delhi Rent Control Act and on the contrary plaint prima facie appears to have been filed on the basis that the rate of rent is Rs.3,600/- p.m i.e more than Rs.3,500/- p.m. for the Delhi Rent Control Act not to apply.
4. In view of the above, I do not think that there exists any admissions for the suit to be decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, much less on the ground that the premises in question are situated in an area where the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 does not apply.
5. Dismissed.
NOVEMBER 10, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib