M/S Aakriti Carpet (P) Ltd. vs Sh. Naresh Kumar & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 6194 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RFA No. 171/2009

%                                                      16th December, 2011

       M/S AAKRITI CARPET (P) LTD.                 ..... Appellants
                       Through : Mr. Rajiv K. Garg and Mr. Ashish
                                 Garg, Advocates.
                versus

      SH. NARESH KUMAR & ANR.                           ..... Respondents
                         Through : Mr. Vikas K. Chadha and Mr. R.K.
                                       Jain, Advocates.
                                       Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Advocate for
                                       MCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)


1.     The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed

under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC) is to the

impugned judgment of the trial court dated 2.4.2009, by which judgment the

trial court decreed the suit filed by the respondent / plaintiff / landlord

against the appellant / defendant under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for possession.

2.     The facts of the case are that the respondent / plaintiff inducted the

appellant / defendant as a tenant in the suit property bearing No.447 (Old

No.123), B-259, Gali Mandir Wali, Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi at a monthly

RFA No. 171/2009                                                          Page 1 of 4
 rent of Rs.2,000/- exclusive of other charges. The tenancy was terminated

by a legal notice dated 8.8.2006, and since the appellant / defendant failed to

vacate the subject property, a suit for possession was filed. It may be noted

that prior to filing of the subject suit, the appellant / defendant had filed

proceedings under Section 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking

that the respondent / plaintiff be directed to maintain the tenanted property

and had claimed deduction for expenses made for repairs to the tenanted

property. This petition under Section 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, filed

by the appellant / defendant was dismissed on the statement of the appellant

/ defendant that the subject premises did not fall within the purview of the

Delhi Rent Control Act, as the Delhi Rent Control Act had not been

extended by any notification to the subject area where the suit premises are

situated.

3.     The trial Court has decreed the suit by holding that there is a

relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the premises do not

fall within the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and that the tenancy

was terminated by the legal notice dated 8.8.2006 w.e.f. 30.9.2006, and

therefore, the respondent / plaintiff was entitled to possession.

4.     Before this Court, I repeatedly put to counsel for the appellant /

defendant to show me any notification whereby the Delhi Rent Control Act,
RFA No. 171/2009                                                            Page 2 of 4
 1958 has been extended to the area where the subject premises are located

i.e. in the area of Shahbad Daultpur, but the counsel could not point out any

such notification. I may note that before the Delhi Rent Control Act is

applicable, as per Section 1 of the said Act, the same has to be extended by

means of a notification to an area, unless the area falls within the first

schedule in the Act. The subject premises are not situated in an area which

is specified in the first schedule of the Act, and nor has any notification been

pointed out to me to show that the Delhi Rent Control Act is extended to the

area where the subject premises are situated. The notification which is

pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is a notification dated

26.2.1986, which has no reference to the area Shahbad Daultpur.

5.     In view of the above said fact that the premises are outside the

protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The appellant / defendant himself

in the earlier proceedings under Section 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act

admitted that the proceedings could not be filed under the Delhi Rent

Control Act as the premises were not situated within the area of operation of

the Delhi Rent Control Act, the fact that the relationship of landlord and

tenant existed between the parties which was terminated by a legal notice,

shows that the trial Court rightly decreed the suit under Order 12 Rule 6 of

the CPC for possession. I may finally note that this Court vide order dated
RFA No. 171/2009                                                             Page 3 of 4
 8.9.2009 directed the appellant to pay the rent of Rs.2,000/- per month as per

the agreement, however, the counsel for the respondent says that the

appellant has not paid the rent since 1.4.2011, though the same is disputed

by the counsel for the appellant.

6.     Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there cannot be estoppel

against law, however, this argument is of no effect inasmuch as no

notification had been pointed out showing extension of the Delhi Rent

Control Act to the area where the subject suit premises are situated.

7.     In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal, which is

accordingly dismissed with costs of `20,000/-. The Supreme Court in the

recent judgment of Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. v. Nirmala Devi & Ors.,

(2011) 8 SCC 249 has observed that it is high time that actual and realistic

costs be imposed so that a losing litigant does not profit out of delay caused

to the conclusion of the litigation.

8.     The appeal is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. Interim orders

granted are vacated.



                                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

DECEMBER 16, 2011 dk