Krishan Dutt Sharma v. Mustafa

(1) Whether reporters of localpapermay be allowed to see the judgment? (2) To be referredto the reporteror not? (3) Whetherthejudgment should be reported in the Digest ?

JUDGMENT

ARUNA SURESH. J. (OraO

1. Plaintiff (Respondent herein) being owner and landlord of property bearing No.A-222, 1/6 Bhagirathi Vihar, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-94 leased out a shop on the ground floor of the said property to the defendant (appellant herein) on a monthly rent of Rs.363/- in July, 2007. It was month to month tenancy. Plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the RSA 28/2010 Page 1 of[4] 2010:DHC:15501 defendant vide notice dated 2.1.2009 on the ground that he wanted the shop for his personal use. This notice was replied by the defendant vide reply dated 8.1.2009. Since defendant failed to vacate the premises, plaintiff filed a suit for possession, mesne profits and damages against the defendant. A decree for possession was accordingly passed by the trial court on an application of the defendant filed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

2. Appeal against the order and decree of the trial court filed by the defendant was dismissed. This resulted into filing of the second appeal by the defendant.

3. Mr. M.R. Chanchal learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') and the premises being commercial premises are within the purviewof DRC Act. Therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for possession in favour of the respondent. It is also submitted that Appellate Court did not take into consideration,the legal issue regarding jurisdiction of the court while dismissing the RSA 28/2010 Page 2 of[4] appeal. He has argued that substantial questions of law are required to be formulated in this appeal.

4. These submissions are devoid of any merits. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is an admitted fact. It is also admitted that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by the landlord/plaintiff vide notice dated 2.1.2009. It is an admitted fact that defendant had filed a petition under Section 45 of the DRC Act on the allegations that plaintiff had stopped issuing rent receipts and had also disconnected the electricity of the said shop with mala fide intention. It was on coming to know that DRC Act is not applicable to the said premises, he withdrew the said petition and filed a suit for mandatory injunction, which probably is still pending adjudication. Thus defendant himself admitted that DRC Act was not apphcable to the demised premises. Since the demised premises are not covered under the special provisions ofDRC Act, only reliefavailable to the plaintiffto seek possession of the demised premises was to file a suit for possessionunder the Transferof PropertyAct. RSA 28/2010 Page 3 of[4]

5. Legality and validity ofthe notice of terminationof tenancy is not in dispute. Therefore, sincethe trial courtpassed a decree of possession on the basis of clear unambiguous admission made by the defendant in the written statement including that of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit for possession, the trial courtpassed a decree of possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The appellate court rightly upheld the judgment and decree ofthe trial court.

6. Under these circumstances, when decree has been passed on admission, no substantial question of law is required to be formulated, since there is none. Hence, appeal is hereby dismissed.

FEBRUARY 11, 2010 vk

ARUNA SURESH (JUDGE)