Shri Kayum Khan @ Ayub Khan vs Smt.Maharani Devi
2011 Latest Caselaw 4392 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 08.09.2011


+             CM (M) No. 1046/2011 & CM Nos.16821-22/2011



SHRI KAYUM KHAN @ AYUB KHAN          ...........Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. Rakesh Saini, Advocate.

                      Versus


SMT. MAHARANI DEVI                                 ..........Respondent
                  Through:           , Advocate.

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 petition has impugned the order of the ARCT dated

01.08.2011 which had affirmed the order of the ARC dated

31.03.2009 vide which the case of the petitioner under Section 14

(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Tribunal (DRCA) had stood

proved; however since the case was a case of first default by the

tenant for non-payment of rent, benefits of Section 14 (2) of the

said Act had been afforded to the tenant.

2. Facts as evident from the record are that the

petitioner/landlord is the owner of premises bearing No. RZ-48,

Village Nangloi Sayyed, New Delhi; respondent was a tenant in

one shop @ Rs.1,815/- per month; the case of the landlord was

that this was in terms of an agreement dated 03.02.1997; earlier

rent was Rs.1,500/- per month but this was only up to 01.02.1997;

in terms of written rent agreement dated 03.02.1997, the monthly

rent had been enhanced from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,815/- per month.

Written statement had been filed; in this written statement this

rent agreement (Ex.PW3/A) dated 03.02.1997 had nowhere been

denied; even in the reply to the legal notice there was no such

dispute raised by the tenant. The contention of the tenant is that

there was only an oral agreement between the parties pursuant to

which the partied had entered into a landlord-tenant relationship;

contention being that the rate of rent was Rs.1,500/- per month

but there was no written agreement i.e. Ex.PW-3/A by virtue of

which rent stood enhanced from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,815/- per

month; at best rent could have been increased only by 10% in

terms of Section 8 of the DRCA.

3. Both the courts below i.e. ARC as also the ARCT had

rejected this submission of the tenant; oral and documentary

evidence led had been gone into. It had been noted that the

landlord has specifically pleaded about a written agreement

Ex.PW-3/A purported to have been entered into between the

parties on 03.02.1997 but neither in the reply to the legal notice

and nor in the written statement there was any denial to this rent

agreement; the landlord in his deposition on oath (examined as

PW-1) has deposed that this rent agreement had been executed as

the landlord wanted to get the premises vacated but the tenant

had sought an extension of 3-4 months; for the said purpose, this

rent agreement for enhanced rent had been entered into between

the parties. It is also relevant to note that the tenant had in

written statement nowhere denied that he had not signed Ex.PW-

3/A. These facts were noted in the correct perspective by both the

courts below i.e. ARC as also the ARCT to hold that the tenancy

between the parties was initially @ Rs.1,500/- per month but

thereafter in terms of Ex.PW-3/A it had been enhanced to

Rs.1,815/- per month. In fact the only contention raised before this

Court is that parties were governed by an oral tenancy and this

has not been considered in the correct perspective.

4. In view of the aforenoted discussion noted supra the order

of the ARC suffers from no infirmity; it warrants no interference.

Petition is without any merit.

5. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 a