Full Text
U C.R.P. 105/2011
ISRAR AHMEJ) Petitioner
Through: Mr. Varun Goswami, Advocate
Through: None.
0/
/0 10.08.2011
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner:
The petitioner is a defendant in a suit for possession, of the suit property in his occupation, damages and permanent injunction filed by the respondents herein. The suit was filed on the allegations that the petitioner-defendant had been inducted into the suit property as a tenant by the plaintiffs but when a legal notice terminating his tenancy was served upon him he claimed that he himself was the owner of the suit property and not a tenant of the plaintiffs and not only that thereafter he had also started threatening the plaintiffs that he would create third party interest in the suit property.
The petitioner-defendant entered appearance in the suit and moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC alleging that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession in view of the bar created under
Section 50 of the l)elhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and therefore, the plaint Was liable to be rejected.
The learned trial Court has rejected the application under Order VII Rule
ORDER
11 CPC for the reason that since it had been averred in the plaint that the defendant (petitioner herein), had disputed the relationship of the landlord-tenant between the parties and had also claimed himself to be the owner of the suit C.R.P. 105/2011 Page I of[2] 2011:DHC:9978 property the respondents-plaintiffs did not get any right to file a civil suit for possession when it was their own case that the petitioner-defendant was their tenant and it is now well settled that even when a tenant disputes the title of a landlord and tenancy comes to an end by forfeiture even then for getting the property vacated the landlord is to approach the Rent Controller when the rent is less than Z 3500 per month. In my view, for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only averments made in the plaint are to be considered and if that is done then it is clear that the suit cannot be said to be barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act since the respondents-plaintiffs are claiming relief of the possession based on the title which is being challenged by the petitioner-defendant. It would be during the trial for the trial Court to accept the case of the plaintiffs or the defendant 'regarding the title of the suit property and the petitioner-defendant would still be at liberty to show to the trial Court that the suit was barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. This revision petition being devoid of any merits is dismissed in limine.
AUGUST 10, 2011 pg