Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION … Petitioner
Advocates who appeared in this case:- For the Appellant : Mr J.S. Bhasin with Ms Rashmi Priya
For the Respondent : Mr Amit Sethi
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the learned single Judge of this court in CS(OS) 574/2010. Issues had been framed in the said suit and issue no. 4 was as under:- “4. Whether the present suit is barred under the Delhi Rent Control Act? (OPD)”
2. The said issue was initially sought to be treated as a preliminary issue.
3. In the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff had sought three prayers. Prayer (a) was for a decree of possession in respect of the suit premises which incidentally is a property in Connaught Place comprising of an area of 16000 Sq.Ft. for which the appellant is paying Rs. 627.50 rent per month. The respondent/plaintiff had also sought recovery of a sum of Rs. 2014:DHC:2073-DB 1,20,00,000/- along with mesne profits and damages, which reliefs are comprised in prayers (b) and (c) of the said plaint.
4. The learned single Judge while hearing the matter on the preliminary issue no. 4 concluded that insofar as prayers (b) and (c) are concerned the suit was maintainable. However, with regard to relief of possession, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that as it involved mixed questions of fact and law, evidence would have to be examined before the same could be determined and therefore it was not proper for her to decide the issue as a preliminary issue without looking at the evidence that the parties may lead. Consequently, issue no. 4 was decided partly in favour of the respondent /plaintiff and against the defendant holding that the said suit as regards prayers (b) and (c) was not barred by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. However, with regard to the question as to whether the relief of a decree of possession was barred by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the learned single Judge was of the view that it would have to be decided only after the parties have led their evidence.
5. The appellant is not aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge that insofar as prayers (b) and (c) are concerned they are not barred by the provision of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the question with regard to prayer (a) also ought to have been decided by the learned single Judge as a preliminary issue after having heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. We are at a loss to understand as to how the order passed by the learned single Judge causes any prejudice to the appellant/defendant inasmuch as the issue with regard to prayer (a) has been kept alive by the learned single Judge and no conclusive decision has been given by her. She has, in our view, correctly observed that the said aspect of issue no.4 can only be decided after going through the evidence which may be led by the parties in order to ascertain the intention of the parties at the time of letting of the property. Furthermore the observations of the learned single Judge with regard to prayer (a) are only prima facie observations and they would not come in the way of either party when the suit is finally heard after the evidence is led on each of the issues.
7. As a result of the foregoing discussion we are of the view that no interference with the impugned order is called for. The appeal is dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J APRIL 21, 2014 kb