Shobha Mehta vs Arjun Lal
1999 Latest Caselaw 645 Del

Citation : 1999 Latest Caselaw 645 Del
Judgement Date : 9 August, 1999

Delhi High Court

Shobha Mehta vs Arjun Lal on 9 August, 1999

Equivalent citations: 1999 VAD Delhi 253, 81 (1999) DLT 489, 1999 (51) DRJ 109, ILR 1999 Delhi 262, 1999 RLR 509

Author: V Jain

Bench: V Jain

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. This petition was filed under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by Smt. Shobha Mehta. She had purchased the property from one Shri Ram Lal vide registered sale-deed dated 7.11.1979, the same is Ex.AW 1/2. That petition found favour with the Addl. Rent Controller who passed a preliminary order under Section 14(1)(k) on 14.9.1984 and after giving opportunities to the L&DO and taking into consideration the statement of L&DO on account of misuser charges and that further misuser was not allowed, passed an order under Section 14(1)(k) directing the tenant/respondent to stop the misuser within one month and also make the payment of the misuser charges as per the statement given by the L&DO within four weeks.

2. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal set aside the findings of the Addl. Rent Controller on the ground that as the property was purchased by the petitioner from Shri Ram Lal and same has not been mutated in the record of L&DO, right to file petition under Section 14(1)(k) was not available in the hands of the petitioner. Mr. Gupta has contended that at page 4A of the paper-book there is a mutation certificate from the Ministry of Works & Houses, L&DO dated 26.8.1985 and this Court may take the subsequent events into consideration and set aside the order of the Rent Control Tribunal.

3. To my mind it was not required when that property was to be mutated in the name of petitioner to maintain petition under ground of Section 14(1)(k) when the property was purchased by an instrument registered as a sale-deed dated 7.11.1979 on which stamp duty was paid by the petitioner, property with all its conditions by superior lessor stood transferred in the name of the present petitioner. To hold contrary was not justified by the Rent Control Tribunal. However, I do not dwell much on this aspect of the matter as admittedly the mutation has been effect in the name of the petitioner in 1985.

4. I set aside the order of the Rent Control Tribunal and restore the order of the Addl. Rent Controller.

5. Appeal is allowed.