* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 08.09.2011
+ CM (M) No. 1046/2011 & CM Nos.16821-22/2011
SHRI KAYUM KHAN @ AYUB KHAN ...........Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Saini, Advocate.
Versus
SMT. MAHARANI DEVI ..........Respondent
Through: , Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. This petition has impugned the order of the ARCT dated 01.08.2011 which had affirmed the order of the ARC dated 31.03.2009 vide which the case of the petitioner under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Tribunal (DRCA) had stood proved; however since the case was a case of first default by the CM (M) No.1046/2011 Page 1 of 4 tenant for non-payment of rent, benefits of Section 14 (2) of the said Act had been afforded to the tenant.
2. Facts as evident from the record are that the petitioner/landlord is the owner of premises bearing No. RZ-48, Village Nangloi Sayyed, New Delhi; respondent was a tenant in one shop @ Rs.1,815/- per month; the case of the landlord was that this was in terms of an agreement dated 03.02.1997; earlier rent was Rs.1,500/- per month but this was only up to 01.02.1997; in terms of written rent agreement dated 03.02.1997, the monthly rent had been enhanced from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,815/- per month. Written statement had been filed; in this written statement this rent agreement (Ex.PW3/A) dated 03.02.1997 had nowhere been denied; even in the reply to the legal notice there was no such dispute raised by the tenant. The contention of the tenant is that there was only an oral agreement between the parties pursuant to which the partied had entered into a landlord-tenant relationship; contention being that the rate of rent was Rs.1,500/- per month but there was no written agreement i.e. Ex.PW-3/A by virtue of which rent stood enhanced from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,815/- per month; at best rent could have been increased only by 10% in terms of Section 8 of the DRCA.
CM (M) No.1046/2011 Page 2 of 4
3. Both the courts below i.e. ARC as also the ARCT had rejected this submission of the tenant; oral and documentary evidence led had been gone into. It had been noted that the landlord has specifically pleaded about a written agreement Ex.PW-3/A purported to have been entered into between the parties on 03.02.1997 but neither in the reply to the legal notice and nor in the written statement there was any denial to this rent agreement; the landlord in his deposition on oath (examined as PW-1) has deposed that this rent agreement had been executed as the landlord wanted to get the premises vacated but the tenant had sought an extension of 3-4 months; for the said purpose, this rent agreement for enhanced rent had been entered into between the parties. It is also relevant to note that the tenant had in written statement nowhere denied that he had not signed Ex.PW- 3/A. These facts were noted in the correct perspective by both the courts below i.e. ARC as also the ARCT to hold that the tenancy between the parties was initially @ Rs.1,500/- per month but thereafter in terms of Ex.PW-3/A it had been enhanced to Rs.1,815/- per month. In fact the only contention raised before this Court is that parties were governed by an oral tenancy and this has not been considered in the correct perspective. CM (M) No.1046/2011 Page 3 of 4
4. In view of the aforenoted discussion noted supra the order of the ARC suffers from no infirmity; it warrants no interference. Petition is without any merit.
5. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 a CM (M) No.1046/2011 Page 4 of 4