Rafi Ahmad Khan vs Jalaludin
2012 Latest Caselaw 5516 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Date of Judgment:13.9.2012

+     REVIEW PETITION No.225/2011 in RSA No.210/2010

      RAFI AHMAD KHAN                               .......Appellant
                   Through:              Mr.J.C.Mahendroo, Advocate.

                       Versus

      JALALUDIN                                     .......Respondent
                            Through:     Mr.A.K.Srivastva, Advocate.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 This review petition seeks a review of the judgment and decree

dated 01.4.2011; submission is that in view of the notification dated

16.12.1954 it is clear that the suit property falls in village Jafrabad and

the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as

the DRCA) being applicable to the disputed property, the trial court

having decreed the suit on 01.5.2010 while deciding Issue No.1 in

favour of the plaintiff and holding that the DRCA is not applicable has

committed a folly; this judgment of the trial court which has been

endorsed by the first Appellate Court as also by the impugned judgment

and decree dated 01.4.2011 is liable to be set aside.

2     Reply filed has opposed this petition.

3     Record shows that the present suit has been filed as a suit for

possession of suit property bearing No.152/2, R/o536, Gali No.18, Main

Road Jafrabad, Markazi Chowk, Seelampur, Delhi (hereinafter referred

to as the suit property). In the written statement defence was taken that

the trial court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Issue

No.1 was related to the applicability of DRCA. Oral and documentary

evidence was led. This issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff. The

first Appellate Court had endorsed the finding returned by the trial court.

Vide impugned judgment dated 01.4.2011 no substantial question of law

having arisen the second appeal also stood dismissed.

4 This review petition has been preferred against this judgment

dated 01.4.2011. Body of the notification dated 16.12.1954 (which is

the basis and foundation of this review petition) has been perused. It

reads as under:

"GOVERNMENT GAZETTE DELHI STATE DELHI, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1954

NOTIFICATION STATUTORY LOCAL BODY GOVERNMENT OF DELHI LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATIONS DELHI, THE 8TH DECEMBER, 1954.

N-F-4 (19/50 LSG-In exercise of the powers confirmed by Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 as enforce in the State of Delhi, the Chief Commissioner, Delhi is pleased to include within the limits of Municipal Committee, Delhi, Shahdara, the Area defined in the schedule below situated conterminously with the Northern Limits of the existing boundaries of the said Municipality as defined in Chief Commissioner's Notification No. F4 (57/43(i) LSG dated the 6th July 1943 No. (19)/50 LSD dated 9th June 1952 and No. F4(25)/51 LSG dated the 1st April, 1954.

SCHEDULE

South-....

East-....

North-....

West -A line drawn Southwards from Seh Hadda of village babarpur upto Seh Hadda of village Jafrabad, Babarpur and Auldanpur thence Westwards upto Seh Hadda of Village Jafrabad and Auldanpur thence Southwards upto the intersecting point on Western limits of village Auldanpur and the existing Northern limits of Shahdara Municipality 220 yards from the G.T. Road.

Note:- The above area includes:

1. The remaining land of village Chandrawli alias Shahdara,

2. Sikdarpur Village, and

3. The remaining land of village Auldanpur."

5 The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that

there is nothing to show that the suit property falls in village Jafrabad is

well founded and is evident from this notification. This notification only

shows that the line drawn Southwards from the hadd (junction) of

village Babarpur up to the hadd (junction) of village Jafrabad up to the

intersection point falls within the municipal committee of Shahdara. It

does not refer to the properties which are located inside village Jafrabad.

Present suit property is admittedly a part of village Jafrabad. This

notification is wholly inapplicable. No ground for review is made out.

6 Even before the RSA Court a notification dated 20.2.1986 had

been sought to be brought on record; it was not permitted; application

under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the

applicant had been dismissed. The notification dated 20.2.1986 did not

cover village Jafrabad in the list of revenue estates.

7 Submission of the petitioner that on one pretext or the other the

execution proceedings are being sought to be thwarted and the plaintiff

who had got his decree way back on 01.5.2010 is not able to enjoy the

fruits of his decree is also a well founded submission.

8 Review petition is wholly without merit; dismissed with cost of

Rs.10,000/-.

INDERMEET KAUR, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2012/nandan