Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RSA No. 65/2012 & CM No. 6961/2012 (stay)
29th April, 2014 OM PRAKASH ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Lalit Kumar Laarn, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Advocate
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This second appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC against the concurrent judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord for possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The suit has been decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC because if a premise is newly constructed in Delhi, then, by virtue of Section 3(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for a period of 10 years of construction the tenants will not get the protection of the Rent Control Act. 2014:DHC:2221
2. Though the suit was filed not on the ground of the premises being outside the Rent Control Act by virtue of Section 3(d) but Section 3(c) because the rent was stated to be Rs.7150/- per month, and in which case premises are outside the Rent Control Act as the rent is more than Rs.3500/-, however, the appellant-defendant in the written statement admitted in para-2 of the reply on merits that the suit property was constructed in the year 2008. The suit property was let out to the appellant/defendant/tenant in the year 2010, and therefore, since letting out is within 10 years, of the property being newly constructed, consequently, the respondent/plaintiff/landlord filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for decreeing of the suit on the basis of the admitted facts as per Section 3(d) and the suit was accordingly decreed. I may note that to shorten the litigation, it has been repeatedly held that courts can take notice of admitted facts and new or subsequent events under Order 7 Rule 7 CPC, and which aspect I am observing because though the tenancy was said to be outside the protection of the Rent Control Act not on the ground of Section 3(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as pleaded in the plaint but because of Section 3(c), however, courts are never powerless to do justice once undisputed facts come on record.
3. In the present case, there is a categorical admission in the reply on merits para 2 of the written statement of the suit property being newly constructed in the year 2008 and let out in the year 2010. The suit itself had been filed in the year 2011. The premises are hence outside the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act as per the admitted facts appearing on record.
4. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC and the appeal is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
APRIL 29, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib