Delhi High Court
Bharat Steel Tube Ltd. vs Ranjit Singh on 19 February, 1996
Equivalent citations: 62 (1996) DLT 220, 1996 RLR 200
Author: M Narain
Bench: M Narain, J Goel
JUDGMENT
Mahinder Narain, J.
1. In the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Another), it has been held that the premises, rent whereof is more than Rs. 3500/-per month, is outside the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
2. Mr. Arun Mohan, appearing for the appellant, contends that in the instant case the first letting of the premises was less than Rs. 3500/- per month, and on that account, by virtue of the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the rent on which the premises was first let, becomes the standard rent of the premises, and it is unlawful to receive the rent higher than the rent payable at the first letting. The rent payable at the first letting was Rs. 3058.05 p. per month as on 1.7.1980, and the rent paid at the time when the eviction was sought on 18.7.1990, was Rs. 4070/-. Mr. Arun Mohan further contends that the rent of Rs. 4070/- was not receivable lawfully, as the standard rent which was fixed for the premises on first letting was Rs. 3058.05 p.
3. A reading of the provisions relied upon by Mr. Arun Mohan would itself show that the standard rent is deemed to be the standard rent for a period of five years only. In this view of the matter, the standard rent of Rs. 3058.05 p. was the standard rent only up to 1985, when the period of five years letting was over.
4. Another argument advanced by Mr. Arun Mohan is that only the rent which could have been received, was the standard rent fixed under the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and increase of rent by the parties by agreement will not be lawful as it is not recoverable by virtue of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. It is urged by the respondents that this particular plea has not been taken in the written statement, so it is not open to the appellant.
5. In our view, the contention of Mr. Arun Mohan that at the end of the 5th year, the deemed standard rent continued to prevail together with the permitted increases is not tenable. Such a contention is contrary to the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as the plea of deemed standard rent can only be for five years period permitted by the statute. By act of parties, the appellant has increased the rent, and they cannot contend that what they paid, was not permissible. The standard rent provision not being applicable, question of permitted increase does not arise.
6. The judgment of the Supreme Court reported (Union of India v. Sh. Shivkumar Bhargava and Ors.), states "there is no inflexible rule that every variation at the rate of rent payable under the registered deed of lease, necessarily implies surrender of the said lease,and creation of a new tenancy, or that whenever rate of rent is altered, a new relationship between the parties gets created. In our view, the rent receivable for the premises on 1.12.1988, the date when the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act came into force, being Rs. 4070/- was receivable as rent in accordance with the law, and the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act did not prohibit the receipt of the said amount.
7. In this view of the matter, in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended by Section 2 of Act 58 of 1988, the premises in question is out of the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the suit for ejectment is maintainable.
8. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.C. Bhatia's case (supra) and Savita De v. Nageswar Majumdar and Anr., , we do not think there is any merit in the contention of the appellant that the original letting is of such significance that the protection against eviction initially granted, will continue.
9. This Court also has taken a similar view in R.F.A. No. 206/91, decided on 8.8.1991, as taken by us herein. We find no merit in this appeal, and the same is dismissed.
