Delhi High Court
Shri Rajesh Verma & Another vs Shri Keshav Dutt Sharma on 3 June, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 03.06.2011
+ R.S.A.No. 99/2011 & CM No.11517/2011
SHRI RAJESH VERMA & ANOTHER ...........Appellant
Through: Mr. B.R. Bakshi, Advocate.
Versus
SHRI KESHAV DUTT SHARMA ..........Respondent
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers 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
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree
dated28.04.2011 which has endorsed the finding of the trial Judge
dated 12.09.2008 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Keshav
Dutt Sharma seeking possession of the suit property i.e. property
bearing No. RZ-35-F, Raj Nagar-II, Dada Chatri Wala Marg, Palam
Colony, New Delhi along with damages had been decreed.
2 The plaintiff claimed himself to the owner of the aforenoted
suit property. It comprised of a shop. It had been tenanted out to
the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.700/- per month w.e.f.
01.11.1989 vide written agreement dated 14.12.1989. It was
agreed that the suit shop could be used for running the business
of defendant No. 1; defendant No. 1 without any written
permission parted with the possession of the suit shop in favour of
defendant No. 2; defendant No. 1 is in arrears of rent w.e.f.
01.03.1993. Vide legal notice dated 29.05.1995 (Ex. PW-1/2) the
tenancy of the defendant was terminated w.e.f. 31.08.1995;
defendant is an unauthorized occupant; damages of Rs.100/- per
day had also been claimed.
3. In the joint written statement filed by both the defendants
objection of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had
been taken. It was stated that the suit is barred under the said
provision; claim of subletting had also been denied; receipt of
notice had also been denied.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following six issues were
framed:-
1. Whether the shop in question was ever let out by the plaintiff to
defendant No. 2 as alleged in the plaint? OPP
2. Whether the defendants are in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.03.1993 as
claimed in the plaint, if so up to what period? OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred u/s 50 of Delhi Rent Control
Act? OPD
4. Whether suit is barred under Delhi Land Reforms Act? OPD
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed in the plaint?
6. Relief.
5. Oral and documentary evidence was led. The court was of
the view that there is no bar under Section 50 of the DRCA; the
notification dated 12.04.2002 under Section 507 (a) of the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act (DMC) relied upon by the defendant
holding that the suit land had become urban by virtue of which
the DRCA has been extended to Palam Village had been rejected
as the Court had noted that in view of the judgment of the Apex
Court reported in Mitten Bain Jain Vs. Shakuntla Devi DCLR 2000
(2) Delhi 271, a second notification under Section 1 (2) of the
DRCA had also to be promulgated before the provisions of DRCA
are made applicable in terms of the said notification dated
12.04.2002; the second notification not having been followed by
the first notification, this issue was decided in favour of the
plaintiff; Palam Village had been held not to be included within
the purview of the DRCA; the suit of the plaintiff was decreed
along with damages @ Rs.100/- per day.
6. This finding has been endorsed by the first appellate court.
7. This is a second appeal. It is yet at the stage of admission.
Substantial questions of law have been embodied on page 22 of
the body of the appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has conceded that he is
not challenging the concurrent findings of the two courts below
holding that the notification urbanizing the land u/s 507 (a) of the
DMC Act was not made applicable to Palam Village as the second
notification as contemplated under Section 1 (2) of the DRCA had
not followed it. No further arguments had been addressed on this
score. Learned counsel for the appellant has however urged that
his tenancy had not been validly terminated; notice Ex. PW-1/2
(dated 29.05.1995) states that the tenancy has been terminated
w.e.f. 31.07.1995 whereas the plaint and deposition make
reference of a date of 31.08.1995. Argument has been rested
largely on this error in the date; this error in the date appears to
be clearly a typographical error; PW-2 had come into the witness
box to prove this notice which had been exhibited as Ex. PW-2/2;
postal receipt is Ex. PW-2/3 and A.D. card is Ex. PW-2/4. There is
not a whisper in the entire cross-examination of PW-2 that this
notice had not been received by the defendant. This argument
does not carry any force. The second limb of the argument that
the subtenant has not been served is also without any force. The
plaintiff had terminated the tenancy of defendant No. 1 who was
his tenant; no separate notice was required to be given to
defendant No. 2.
9 Mesne profits have also been rightly awarded. Testimony of
PW-2 had been noted on this score; judicial notice of the
prevailing market rates had been taken into account; damages
awarded @ Rs.70/- per day w.e.f. 01.09.1995 (date of termination
of tenancy) till the date of vacant possession of the suit land also
call for no interference.
10 There is no infirmity in the finding of the two courts below.
No substantial question of law having arisen. Appeal as also
pending application are dismissed in limine.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JUNE 03, 2011
A
