Uco Bank vs Ramesh Kumar Chawla
2012 Latest Caselaw 866 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 08.02.2012.

+     C.R.P. 137/2011 & CM No. 17492/2011


      UCO BANK                                            ..... Petitioner
                             Through    Mr. Dilip Aggarwal, Adv.

                    versus


      RAMESH KUMAR CHAWLA               ..... Respondent
                 Through  Mr. Tara Chand Gupta, Adv.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 08.07.2011

vide which the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11

of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟)

seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that there is a bar of Section

50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) and the present suit for

possession is not maintainable had been declined.

2 There is no doubt to the proposition that to deal with an

application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the averments made in

the plaint alone have to be scrutinized and not the defend as sought to be

set up by the defendant.

3 Record shows that the present suit is a suit for recovery of

possession and mesne profits/damages. The plaintiff Ramesh Kumar

Chawla claims himself to be the owner of the disputed premises i.e. C-

1/1, Lal Quarter, Krishan Nagar, Delhi having been let out to the

defendant for bank business and lease deed in this respect has been

executed in the year 1976 for a period of 10 years. Contention in para 9

is that the defendant is paying `925/- per month as user charges of the

premises since 1976 whereas the present value of the suit premises is

much more; the market rent being about `9,000/- per month; further

contention being that the defendant has in fact sublet these premises to

some other person from whom he is charging an exorbitant amount; the

defendant is in illegal occupation of the premises. The plaintiff has

further averred that a legal notice dated 19.07.2010 was served upon the

petitioner calling upon him to vacate the premises but he has failed to do

so; in para 15 it has further been stated that the defendant is not

protected by the DRCA as the present value of the suit premises has

escalated and the user charges would be more than `9,000/- per month;

however in the same para, it has been admitted that the rent in 1976 had

been fixed at `925/- per month; present suit for possession as also for

damages/mesne profits has been filed.

4 Written statement was filed. Thereafter an application under

Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code had been filed; the averments made in this

application have been perused. The contention of the defendant is that

the lease of the demised premises has been created in the year 1976 @

`750/- per month; it was thereafter enhanced to `925/- per month w.e.f.

18.02.1976; it is pointed out that admittedly no notice has been given to

the defendant for enhancement of rent and as such the last paid rent is

only `925/- per month; the submission of the plaintiff that the premises

have been sublet by the defendant to another person is only a ground for

eviction which can be pleaded in eviction proceedings which have to be

filed before the Additional Rent Controller; bar of Section 50 prohibits

filing of a civil suit.

5 Reply to the said application was filed disputing this position.

6 However it is not in dispute that a lease deed dated 23.03.1977

had in fact been executed between the parties; this lease deed has in fact

been relied upon by the plaintiff in the plaint. As per this document, the

premises had been let out to the defendant @ `750/- per month; it is also

not in dispute that thereafter the rate of rent was enhanced to `925/- per

month. It is also an admitted fact that no notice has been given by the

plaintiff to the tenant seeking enhancement of rent; contention of the

plaintiff being that in terms thereof, market rates have escalated and

presently the value of the suit premises has enhanced and the present

user charges as per market rate would be `9,000/- which in fact entitles

the plaintiff to file the present suit and which has disentitled the

defendant to the relief under Section 50 of the DRCA.

7 This submission of the petitioner is clearly bereft of any merit.

Admittedly the suit premises had been let out at the last monthly rate of

`925/- which even as per the plaintiff has not since changed. His only

contention which is evident from the averments made in the plaint that

`9,000/- are the present user charges and thus the bar of Section 50 will

create a hurdle.

8 Section 50 of the DRCA reads as under:-

"50. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred in respect of certain matters -

(1) Save a otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to the fixation of standard rent in relation to any premises to which this Act applies or to eviction of any tenant there from or to any other matter which the Controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Controller under this Act shall be granted by any civil court or other authority.

(2) If, immediately before the commencement of this Act, there is any suit or proceeding pending in any civil court for the eviction of any tenant from any premises to which this Act applies and the construction of which has been completed after the 1st day of June, 19951, but before the 9th day of June, 1955, such suit or proceeding shall, on such commencement , abate.

(3) If, in pursuance of any decree or order made by a court, any tenant has been evicted after the 16th day of August, 1958, from any premises to which this Act applies and the construction of which has been completed after the 1st day of June, 1951, but before the 9th day of June, 1955, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by such evicted tenant within six months from the date of eviction, direct the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the premises or to pay him such compensation as the Controller thinks fit.

(4) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as prevailing a civil court from entertaining any suit or proceeding for the decision of any question of title to any premises to which this Act applies or any question as to the person or persons who are entitled to receive the rent of such premises."

9 It clearly stipulates that no civil Court will entertain any suit or

proceedings in so far as it relates to the fixation of standard rent in

relation to any premises to which the Act applies or to eviction of any

tenant therefrom or to any matter which the Controller is empowered by

or under the Act to decide. All premises where the rent is below `3,500/-

per month, come within the domain and jurisdiction of the Rent

Controller. It is thus clear from the averments made in the plaint itself

that the bar of Section 50 applies and the jurisdiction of civil Courts is

thus barred. This is clear from the averments in the plaint itself. Court

in these circumstances had no option but to reject the plaint. The

impugned order is thus an illegality. It is accordingly set aside. The

plaint is rejected.

10     Petition disposed of.

                                             INDERMEET KAUR, J

FEBRUARY 08, 2012
A