Delhi High Court
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises ... vs M/S. Amrit Lal & Co. on 29 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000 IAD Delhi 86, 82 (1999) DLT 901, 2000 (52) DRJ 204
Author: V Jain
Bench: V Jain
ORDER
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional District Judge, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. Interesting point canvassed before me by Mr. Pradeep Dewan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the amendment in the Delhi Rent Control Act whereby Section 3(c) was introduced in the said Act withdrawing the protection of that Act to such premises whose rent was Rs. 3,500/- per month, no proceedings could contin-ue. It has been contended before me that the rate of rent was Rs. 8,625/- per month and after the amendment, the protection was withdrawn and, therefore, respondent-landlord having filed an eviction petition in the year 1985 could not have pursued simultaneously two remedies one under unamended Delhi Rent Control Act and another by filing a suit for possession.
2. In the matter before me eviction petition was filed by the respondent in the year 1985 on the ground of sub-letting as enumerated in Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. After the amendment, the landlord gave a notice terminating the tenancy of the petitioner on 9.7.1991 and thereafter filed a suit for possession on 18.11.1991. In the civil suit an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed by the tenant who is the petitioner before me, inter alia, praying that the plaint be rejected and as the proceedings under Delhi Rent Control Act are still pending, the Additional District Judge relying upon the ratio of D.C. Bhatia & Others Vs. Union of India & Another 56 (1994) DLT 324, rejected the application of the tenant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that the suit was maintainable.
3. In the meanwhile, the tenant moved an application before the Additional Rent Controller under Section 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC, inter alia, praying that the Court of Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act on account of the amendment brought in the year 1988 in the Delhi Rent Control Act. Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application of the petitioner, who preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal allowed the appeal and quashed the eviction proceedings. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the eviction petition, the landlord also filed an SAO (Being No. 5/99) in this Court. By this order, I first deal with the revision petition filed by the tenant, whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge.
4. In my opinion, the reliance placed by the Additional District Judge in D.C. Bhatia's case (supra) was rightly placed as from the date when the amendment came into force, the protection enjoyed by the tenant on account of the statute was no more in operation and in such a case, the parties were governed under ordinary common law. The respondent was fully justified in filing a suit for possession in a competent court having jurisdiction.
5. I do not find any merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Revision petition is dismissed.
