Geeta Agarwal vs Sunil Healthcare Ltd
2012 Latest Caselaw 3410 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                            Date of Judgment:21.05.2012

+     C.R.P. 64/2011


      GEETA AGARWAL                                 ..... Petitioner
                     Through           Mr. Arvind Dhingra, Adv.
              versus

      SUNIL HEALTHCARE LTD              ..... Respondent
                   Through Mr. P. Pankaj, Adv.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The impugned judgment is dated 18.03.2011; a suit for possession

had been filed by the landlord seeking eviction of his tenant; his

application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') which he had filed in the course of

the proceedings seeking a judgment on admission had been dismissed.

2 The whole crux of the impugned judgment is returned on the

finding that the maintenance charges which was being paid by the tenant

to the builder was a direct payment which was being made by the tenant

to the builder and not being paid directly to the landlord did not qualify

as 'rent' to take it outside the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act

(DRCA).

3 Facts disclose that an amount of Rs.2,192.15 was being paid as

user charges by the tenant to the landlord; another additional sum of

Rs.1,312.50 was being paid as maintenance charges to the builder. There

is no dispute that this amount of Rs.1,312.50 was being paid by the

tenant to the builder directly. Even then this amount would qualify as a

'rent' and fall within the definition of 'rent' thus the cumulative figure

of Rs.2,192.15 plus Rs.1,312.50 = Rs.3,504.65 had taken the premises

outside the purview of the DRCA. Trial Court had returned a finding

that this was a triable issue; the trial Court has fallen in error on this

score.

4 In 82 (1999) DLT 104 Sewa International Fashions Vs. Suman

Kathpalia & Others, a Bench of this Court had noted that the

maintenance charges forms part and parcel of the 'rent' even though the

said maintenance charges were being paid directly to builder/promoter.

5 In view of the aforenoted ratio, it is clear that that the

maintenance charges being paid by the tenant to the builder forms a part

of the rent and thus, the provisions of the DRCA were not attracted.

6 All the other ingredients of provision of Order XII Rule 6 of the

Code were fulfilled; relationship of landlord and tenant was not in

dispute; the receipt of the legal notice 25.06.2010 terminating the

tenancy of the tenant w.e.f. 31.07.2010 was also not disputed. In fact a

reply has also been filed to the legal notice; the only bone of contention

is whether the sum of Rs.1,312.50 was a part of the rent or not. It is

clearly a part of the rent and thus the rent being more than Rs.3,500/- per

month, provisions of the DRCA were not attracted. The petitioner was

entitled to a judgment on admission. The suit of the plaintiff qua his

relief for possession is accordingly decreed.

7     Petition disposed of in the above terms.




                                                INDERMEET KAUR, J
MAY       21, 2012
A