* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:16.05.2012
+ C.R.P. 66/2012 and CM Nos. 9006-9007/2012
GANESHI LAL & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. G.L. Rawal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, Adv.
versus
SHYAM KISHORE ..... Respondent
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 Impugned order is dated 17.04.2011; the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') which had been filed at the time when the evidence of the plaintiff was in progress had been dismissed and rightly so. Contention of the defendant that the plaint had disclosed no cause of action did not find favour with the trial Court. 2 Record shows that the present suit has been filed as a suit for recovery of Rs.87,400/- by one Shyam Kishore against four persons. Contention was that the premises had been let out by the plaintiff to the CRP No.66/2012 Page 1 of 3 defendant. The defendant had sometime in the beginning of 2005 has sub-let this premises @ Rs.36,000/- per month and had parted with the possession of the sub-tenant Tarun Kumar Sharma; provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) would thus become inapplicable. On 06.04.2005, notice was served upon the defendants terminating their tenancy and calling upon them to vacate the suit premises on or before 30.04.2005. The defendants were served with another notice dated 29.07.2009 informing them that the rent was enhanced and they would be charging the enhanced amount of Rs.43,700/-; damages for illegal use and occupation of the premises was accordingly prayed for. 3 It was at the stage of the plaintiff evidence that the aforenoted application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code was filed. Vehement contention of the petitioner is that the suit discloses no cause of action; reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2011 V AD (Delhi) 89 Bhupinder Singh and Others Vs. State Bank of India; contention being that such a suit is not maintainable. Ratio of this judgment is wholly inapplicable. This was a judgment where it was held that the definition of 'tenant must be given an interpretation which must be uniform both in eviction proceedings and in proceedings relating to CRP No.66/2012 Page 2 of 3 recovery of damages.
4 The plaint and cause of action as contained in the plaint make out cause of action. It is not a case where the plaint can be rejected straightway. There is also no dispute to the proposition that to deal with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, it is only the averments which are made in the plaint which have to be perused and not the defences sought to be set up by the defendant. Impugned order declining the prayer of the petitioner/defendant and dismissing his application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code thus calls for no interference.
5 Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
MAY 16, 2012
A
CRP No.66/2012 Page 3 of 3