Full Text
Order delivered on: December 20, 2013
MANJEET KAUR Petitioner
Through Mr.Prmod Kohli, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Reiiu Gupta, Adv.
Through Mr.Rarnan Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Adv.
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Act) read with
Section 1] 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the
JUDGMENT
April, 2013 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, whereby the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner was rejected.
The eviction order was passed in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner in respect of premises comprising of the entire first floor of property bearing H.No.D-24, Bhagwan Dass Nagar, New Delhi-110026 as per portion shown in red and green in the site plan.
The learned Senior counsel on behalf of both the parties have made their submissions for some time, it was felt that it is not necessary to decide
RCR No.2 / 2201 3 2013:DHC:8529 U the entire case on merit and the present petition as well as the eviction petition could be disposed of in view of certain admissions made by both parties.
It is the admitted position that the respondent in her eviction petition has stated that the rent of the tenanted premises was Rs.2000/- per month including all other charges. However, in the application for leave to defend, it was alleged by the petitioner that in the notice issued by the respondent it was alleged that the petitioner and her husband have been making the composite rent of Rs.9000/- of ground and first floor in the account of
Gurpreet Singh, the relative of the respondent. It was also stated in the application for leave to defend in para 8 that as per own admission of the respondent/landlord, the tenanted premises is fetching a rent of over
Rs.3500/- therefore, the same is outside the preview of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 which lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition. in reply, it was stated by the respondent/landlord that in case the petitioner's stand is that rent is above Rs.35001- then the petitioner is called upon to file affidavit and take categorical stand to this effect.
After passing of eviction order, the petitioner again made the following statement in ground (B) which reads as under:
"B. Because the learned Additional Rent Controller has erred in not appreciating that pursuant to Section 3 of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958, as amended, any premise whose monthly rent exceeds Rupees Three Thousand and Five Hundred
(Rs.3,500.00p), does not come within the purview of this legislation."
In support of his submission, the petitioner has filed receipts of rent deposited by the petitioner and the same were issued by the respondent. The said receipts show that the rent was received by the respondent from the
RCR No.212/2013 petitioner for the tenanted premises is Rs.4000/- during the period 2007-
2010. The factum of the receipts as well as admission made by the petitioner in ground (B) are not denied by the respondent. Mr.Raman Kapur, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, states that his client is ready to accept the statement made by the petitioner in the application for leave to defend as well as in ground (B) of the present petition and in view thereof, has now decided to take appropriate remedy for filing the suit for possession in the Civil Court. He has admitted that rent of the tenanted premises was more than Rs.3500/- which was being paid by the petitioner to the respondent and his client has no objection if eviction petition be disposed of in view of abovesaid reason. Mr.Pramod Kohli, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on the other hand, stated that since the respondent herself has made a statement in the application for eviction that the rent of the premises was Rs.2000/-, therefore, the contention of the respondent should not be accepted to take the appropriate remedy in civil court. To some extent, I agree with the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. But at the same time the case of the petitioner before the learned trial court as well as before this Court is that the eviction petition is not maintainable. In the application for leave to defend as well as specific statement made in ground(B) of the present petition, coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, are concerned, and admission made by the respondent, the fact of the mater cannot be ignored that the rent of the tenanted premises was apparently more than Rs.3,500/-. Further, the statement made by the petitioner is supported by the evidence i.e. rent receipts filed by petitioner which have not been denied by either party. RCR No.212/2013 Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the present proceedings as well as the proceedings pending before the Additional Rent Controller/learned trial court cannot proceed further under Section 3 of the Act in view of admission made by both parties. The respondent would be at liberty to take the appropriate action in accordance with law. As and when the said proceedings are initiated in Civil Court, the same would be decided as per its own merit and without being influenced from the impugned order passed on 30u[1] April, 2013. No further orders are required to be passed in the present petition. Thus, the present petition and the eviction petition pending before the learned trial court are disposed of accordingly. Ii. The pending applications also stand disposed of. (OASGi[1]) JUDGE DECEMBER 20, 2013 RCR No.212/2013 Page 4ot[4] V O