Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Angoori Devi
1999 Latest Caselaw 818 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal reversing the order of Additional Rent Controller whereby the Additional Rent Controller Rent has dismissed the petition of the landlady under Section 14(1)(f) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'DRC Act'). Municipal Corporation of Delhi ( in short 'MCD') has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Mr. Raman Duggal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-MCD, has contended that Section 20 of the DRC Act provides election by the tenant in the event of an order being passed under Section 14(1)(f) of the DRC Act. He has contended that the Rent Control Tribunal while not giving the opportunity of an election as contemplated under Section 20 of the DRC Act has committed a serious jurisdictional error. Mr. Duggal has further contended that on the analogy of Section 14(1)(a) where an order being passed by the Additional Rent Controller for any payment of arrears of rent, it is mandatory for the Additional Rent Controller to pass an order giving benefit of Section 14(2). On the same analogy, counsel for the petitioner has contended that what has been provided under Section 20 of the DRC is that if an order is passed for vacating the premises for repairs or reconstruction, it was mandatory on the part of the Rent Control Tribunal to have granted election to the petitioner-MCD. Failure to do so by the Rent Control Tribunal has resulted into miscarriage of justice, same is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. According to the case of the landlady, the premises were let out initially for a period of five years on 17.2.1982 to the MCD. Admittedly, the premises were given for running the Dispensary. When a petition was filed under Section 14(1)(f) of the DRC Act, same was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller. The landlady examined five witnesses including herself before the Additional Rent Controller. An Architect was also examined as AW-3. The relevant testimony of AW-3, the Architect, is as under :-

"1. Crackness of walls composed of bricks in mud morter and plaster in ruinous condition.

2. The floors of the building are in broken condition.

3. Roof consisting of T. Angles and stone slabs is also ruinous. The wooden beams have got cracked and rain water penetrate and cause the dampness.

4. The doors and windows are broken and they require replacements of pennals and frames which are four in number.

5. The plinth level is below the street by 3 feet."

4. The landlady is residing on the first floor of the suit premises. Normally, the tenant, who is residing in the property in question, ought to have carried out some repairs as the property is being used by him but here is a case where in spite of notice being sent by the landlady that the premises are required for repairs, MCD instead of incurring any expenditure in the property in question, in spite of landlady approaching the Court, filed a written statement denying that the property requires repairs. I have directed MCD to File the written statement which was filed before the Additional Rent Controller in this Court. Paragraph-8 of the said written statement is reproduced below:-

"That the sub para.II of para 18 is admitted to the extent that a legal notice from the petitioner Smt. Angoori Devi was received. The said notice is very evasive, vague and improper. Rest of the para is wrong and denied. The facts as has been stated by the petitioner are quite frivolous and baseless. The respondent is well protected under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act as the premises in question was let out for commercial purpose. The premises in question was taken on rent by MCD for running Ayurvedic dispensary in public interest especially for the low income group as it is evidence that the area where the dispensary is situated is surrounded by weaker sections. It is further submitted that the premises were taken on rent for commercial purposes that too in public interest. The petitioner has stated that the premises in question have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and are required bona fide by the petitioner for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated are totally false and baseless. The premises in question is still not in such a position that requires repairs and is quite in a good condition and needs no repairs.

The petitioner has not attached any authentic proof from building/Engg. department of MCD as per building bye-laws of MCD which shows the building has not become unfit for human habitation and still seems to be in a good condition and is fit for human habitation."

5. The stand of the MCD before the Additional Rent Controller was that the allegation of the landlady that the premises are required bona fide for repairs, are without any basis and the same are baseless. On the contrary, it was pleaded :-

".......The premises in question is still not in such a position that requires repairs and is quite in a good condition and needs no repairs."

6. If the tenant sets up a defense in a petition under Section 14(1)(f) of the DRC Act that the premises are safe, habitable and does not require repairs, then consciously such kind of a tenant gives up its right of election. However, on the basis of the evidence on record a finding is returned that the premises have become unsafe for habitation and it requires repairs and that repairs are not possible till the premises are vacated. After said finding a tenant cannot turn around and now say that Section 20(3) of the DRC Act will come to its aid and no order could be passed without giving time to the tenant for election. In the written statement tenant had not pleaded that although the premises do not require repairs but in any event if court finds that premises do require vacation on the ground of repairs then after such repairs are carried out, tenant may be inducted in the premises. In the absence of such pleadings, I do not find that Rent Control Tribunal committed any jurisdictional error. I do not find any infirmity with the Order of the Rent Control Tribunal.

7. Dismissed.