Delhi High Court
Rajiv Kumar Kapoor vs Gurdeep Singh on 14 May, 2010
Author: Aruna Suresh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 99/2010
Date of Decision: May 14, 2010
RAJIV KUMAR KAPOOR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Satish Pandey, Adv. with
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
GURDEEP SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be
allowed to see the judgment?
(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
(3) Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? Yes
JUDGMENT
ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral)
RSA 99/2010 and CM APPL Nos.9008-09/2010
1. Gurdeep Singh Respondent (Plaintiff in the suit) filed a Civil suit for
possession and damages in respect of the shop measuring 7" x 14" at
Ground Floor, Main Satnam Road, forming part of property No. K-
72, Krishna Nagar, Delhi against the appellant alleging that after the
death of Sanjeev Kumar Kapoor, who did not leave behind any legal
heir, shop was occupied by the Respondent and he being in illegal
possession of the shop was liable to be evicted.
2. In the said suit, appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that Respondent
had given the shop on rent to Sanjeev Kumar Kapoor, who expired
on 1.7.2007 and that tenanted premises are governed by the Delhi
Rent Control Act. After the death of Sanjeev Kumar Kapoor,
appellant is running his business in the name and style of Sanjiv
Emporium in the tenanted shop for and on behalf of his parents as
the impugned shop was rented out to his mother Smt. Tripta Rani
Kapoor on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- and therefore in view of the
provisions contained under Section 50 of the Rent Control Act, the
Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
3. The said application was dismissed by the Trial court vide order
dated 19.03.2009 with the observations that without proper evidence
on record it could not be decided whether the tenanted premises were
rented out to Smt. Tripta Rani Kapoor or to deceased Sanjeev Kumar
Kapoor and that plaint disclosed a cause of action in favour of the
Respondent for filing the suit.
4. Challenge to the order by the appellant in appeal also met the same
fate. The Appellate Court while finding itself in agreement with the
Trial court dismissed the appeal. Hence, this appeal.
5. Admitted facts are that appellant is in possession of the suit premises
and is running his business for and on behalf of Smt. Tripta Rani
Kapoor and not as a tenant. Sanjeev Kumar Kapoor was running his
business in the said shop before his death on 1.7.2007. He did not
leave behind any legal heirs. Appellant could not have inherited the
tenancy after the death of Sanjeev Kumar Kapoor. Since, appellant
admittedly is not a tenant in the suit premises therefore, provision of
Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act are not applicable to ousted the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for possession.
6. Some old rent receipts issued in favour of Smt. Tripta Rani Kapoor
were placed on record alongwith the application, but then, Trial court
as well as the Appellate Court were right in observing that without
affording an opportunity to the parties to lead appropriate evidence,
the factum of Smt. Tripta Rani Kapoor being a tenant or not cannot
be decided effectively.
7. I am told that parents of deceased Sanjeev Kumar Kapoor i.e. Smt.
Tripta Rani Kapoor and her husband have already been arrayed as
co-defendants in the suit. The tenancy right of Smt. Tripta Rani
Kapoor would be decided by the Trial Court after due trial of the
case.
8. Therefore, I find no merit in this appeal, the same is accordingly
dismissed.
(ARUNA SURESH)
JUDGE
MAY 14, 2010
vk
