Delhi High Court
Harish Kumar vs Savitri Devi on 12 April, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 75/2010 and CM No. 6026/2010
Decided on 12.04.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
HARISH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harish Kumar, petitioner in person.
versus
SAVITRI DEVI ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest? Yes
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is directed against an order dated
28.03.2009 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, dismissing the
appeal preferred by the petitioner/tenant against an order dated 09.05.2008
passed by the Additional Rent Controller, whereby the petitioner was
directed to deposit rent @ Rs.330/- per month w.e.f. 01.05.2008 and to
continue paying the same. By the very same order, an application filed by
the petitioner/tenant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was also dismissed. The
petitioner has also assailed the order dated 28.03.2009, by which the review
application preferred by him was dismissed vide order dated 04.06.2009, on
the ground that the same was barred by limitation.
2. Vide order dated 09.05.2008 passed by the Additional Rent
Controller on a petition preferred by the respondent/landlady under Section
14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the
application filed under Section 15(1) of the Act was disposed of while
directing the petitioner/tenant to deposit rent @ Rs.330/- per month in the
Court w.e.f. 01.05.2008, on or before 15th day of each succeeding English
calendar month and further, continue to pay the said amount in future. It
was clarified that the aforesaid order was passed in view of the petitioner's
own stand that he was depositing rent in respect of the tenanted premises,
in a separate petition, @ Rs.330/- per month which, as per him, included a
sum of Rs.130/- towards electricity consumption charges. However, the
stand of the respondent/landlady was that the sum of Rs.330/- did not
include the electricity charges. While observing that the aforesaid stand
would be established only after trial and could not be adjudicated at that
stage, the aforesaid interim order was passed directing the respondent to
deposit rent @ Rs.330/- per month as indicated above. By the aforesaid
order, the learned Additional Rent Controller also dismissed an application
filed by the petitioner/tenant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection
of the petition preferred by the respondent/landlady, by holding that the said
application was not maintainable as it contained disputed questions of fact
between the parties, which could be decided only after trial.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 9.5.2008 passed by the
learned the Additional Rent Controller, the petitioner/tenant preferred an
appeal before the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, which also came to be
dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2009. The Additional Rent Control
Tribunal affirmed the order of the Additional Rent Controller and held that
the petitioner was rightly directed to continue depositing rent @ Rs.330/-
per month in view of the fact he was himself depositing rent at the aforesaid
rate in petitions filed by him under Section 27 of the Act. The Tribunal also
upheld the order of the learned ARC rejecting the application filed by the
petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC while holding that disputed questions
of fact could not be looked into while deciding an application of such a
nature.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 28.3.2009, the petitioner
preferred a review application, which was dismissed vide order dated
4.6.2009, as barred by limitation by holding that enquiry revealed that the
certified copy of the order dated 28.03.2009 was applied for by the
petitioner on 08.04.2009 and was made available to him on 13.04.2009,
whereas the review application was filed by him only on 13.05.2009, without
offering any explanation for the delay in filing the application within the
prescribed time.
5. The petitioner who appears in person, has assailed the aforesaid
three orders dated 09.05.2008, 28.03.2009 and 04.06.2009 by preferring
the present petition. He has been heard on merits at length.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Additional Rent
Control Tribunal erred in upholding the order of the Additional Rent
Controller dated 09.05.2008 and that not only is he not liable to pay rent @
Rs.330/- per month, but his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC ought
to have been allowed. He states that the sum of Rs.130/-, which is part of
Rs.330/- is towards electricity charges and that the actual rent in respect of
the tenanted premises is Rs.200/- per month. He, however, does not deny
that the said issue has not been finally decided by the court below and the
matter is listed before the learned ARC on 13.5.2010 for recording of
evidence. It is pertinent to note that while passing the order dated
09.05.2008, directing the petitioner to deposit rent @ Rs.330/- per month,
the learned ARC took notice of the fact that in any case, the respondent was
himself depositing rent at the aforesaid rate in petitions filed by him under
Section 27 of the Act, some of which are stated to be pending disposal. He
states that the said petitions are now listed for hearing on 13.05.2010 and
26.08.2010.
7. This Court finds no error in the order dated 09.05.2008, upheld
by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal vide order dated 28.03.2009. The
order of deposit of rent @ Rs.330/- per month is only interim in nature.
Both the courts below took notice of the fact that the petitioner/tenant had
himself conceded that he was paying a sum of Rs.330/- per month towards
the rent. The question as to whether the sum of Rs.330/- includes the
electricity charges or not is still at large and shall be decided at the time
when the petition filed by the respondent/landlady under Section 14(2) of
the Act is finally disposed of.
8. Further, this Court does not find any error in the orders of the
courts below insofar as the dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is concerned. In the application preferred by
the petitioner/tenant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, he raised various
grounds for rejection of the petition filed by the respondent/landlady. It was
claimed that the petition was not supported by an affidavit; that a wrong site
plan was filed with the petition; that the rent was being paid regularly by
him as per the rent agreement and therefore, no cause of action had arisen
in favour of the respondent/landlady and against the petitioner/tenant.
Quite clearly, the averments contained in the application are mostly
questions of fact particularly, the contention pertaining to the rate of rent as
per the rent agreement and the rent being deposited by the
petitioner/tenant in the Court from time to time including the period prior to
01.05.2008.
9. The courts below were justified in holding that the objections
raised by the petitioner/tenant in his application with regard to the
maintainability of the petition filed by the respondent/landlady, are disputed
questions of facts and are of not such a nature which fall within the
parameters of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Having perused the
application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, this Court
finds no reason to disagree with the aforesaid conclusion. The objections, as
raised by the petitioner in the application do not fall within the parameters of
Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The points raised by the petitioner in his application
have in fact been categorically denied by the respondent in her reply to the
aforesaid application. The aforesaid facts are therefore still in dispute and at
this stage, it cannot be held that the petition preferred by the
respondent/landlady under Section 14(2) of the Act is not maintainable and
hence liable to be rejected.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does
not find any merit in the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed
along with the pending application.
(HIMA KOHLI)
APRIL 12, 2010 JUDGE
rkb
