Surinder Singh vs Gurmeet Kaur
2013 Latest Caselaw 4802 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Judgment pronounced on: October 21, 2013

+             RC. Rev. No.224/2011 & C.M. Nos.20144/2011, 12835/2012
              & CM No.11222/2011

       SURINDER SINGH                                     ..... Petitioner
                    Through            Mr.S.K. Badhwar, Adv.

                          versus

       GURMEET KAUR                           ..... Respondent
                    Through  Ms.Prerna Mehta, Adv.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the above mentioned civil revision under Section 25(B)(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 challenging the order dated 5th February, 2011 passed by the ARC/ACJ/West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, by which the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner/tenant was dismissed.

2. Notice of the present petition was issued on 12th July, 2011 and in the interim the execution of the eviction order was stayed. It appears that the respondent filed two applications, being CM No.20144/2011 for fixing rent at the current market value and being CM No.12835/2012 under Section 151 CPC for vacation of the ex-parte stay order dated 12th July, 2011.

3. When the matter was listed before Court on 4th September, 2013 an adjournment was sought by the petitioner which was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent who informed the Court that for the

last two years the petitioner on one reason or the other is taking the adjournments from the Court and not arguing the matter on merit. She was pressing that either this Court should fix the market rent of the tenanted premises used by the petitioner or should vacate the interim order. In the interest of justice, last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to argue the matter, subject to cost of `15000/-. The cost was paid by the petitioner to the respondent when the matter was listed on 9th October, 2013 and both the parties made their submissions and orders were reserved.

4. While going through the case, it appears that the petitioner has not filed the copies of the eviction petition, the application for leave to defend, its reply and rejoinder. Copy of the site plan has also not been filed by the petitioner. In order to satisfy myself, it is necessary to call for the trial court record to decide the matter finally as it is felt that the pleadings in the application for leave to defend for eviction are necessary. In the meanwhile, the pending applications filed by the respondent are being disposed of.

5. In CM No.20144/2011 filed by the respondent it is stated that as per settled law in the case of Atma Ram Properties v. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705, the petitioner is no longer a tenant and till the time the petitioner is entitled to protection under the Act, he is entitled to pay the rent at current market value of the suit property. According to the respondent, the rent at the current market value of the suit premises is `140/150/- per square feet. The approved area of commercial property is about 450 square feet. Thus, the petitioner is liable to be pay rent as per current market value from the date of eviction order i.e. 5th February, 2011 till the disposal of the present petition. Another issue raised by the respondent is that the petitioner has changed the property description from A-48/2 & 3, Ring Road Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi to A-48/1 & 2, Ring Road Market, Rajouri

Garden, New Delhi, as the property continues to remain at A-48/2 & 3 in the Municipal records. As far as the market rent is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is not sustainable in law and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to pay the rent at the current market value of the tenanted premises.

6. Ms.Prerna Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent under these circumstances is insisting that interim order passed by this Court on 12th July, 2013 be vacated. After having considered the submission of both the parties, I am of the considered view that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent has a force and the respondent is entitled to receive the reasonable current market value of the tenanted premises from the petitioner from the date of eviction order dated 5 th February, 2011.

7. As regard the change of description of suit property is concerned, even for this purpose, the trial court record is necessary and the said issue would have to be considered at the time of disposal of the matter. As far as the prayer of current market rent is concerned, if the prayer of the respondent is allowed as stated in the application, the total current market value of the rent would be `63000/- per month. In support of her submission, Ms.Prerna Mehta has placed on record the copies of the rent agreement of the year 2008 and registered lease deed dated 25 th April, 2013 of the same area.

8. Though some material is available on record as produced by the petitioner but the final figure at the market value cannot be assessed unless the evidence in this regard is recorded. However, considering the main fact that the tenanted property in question is in the Ring Road Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, the same is being used by the petitioner for commercial purposes. Thus, the reasonable amount has to be fixed by this Court

considering the fact that the respondent is a widow and she has no source of income and at the same time it is necessary for the Court to go through the trial court record as the same has not been filed by the petitioner, who ought to have filed the same along with the present petition. Thus, interim order granted on 12th July, 2011 shall continue till the disposal of the present petition, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay at least sum of `40000/- as rent at the current market value of the tenanted premises from the date of the eviction order i.e. 5th February, 2011. The said amount shall be paid by the petitioner without prejudice within two months from today. In case, the present petition is allowed by granting leave to defend, the said amount would be refunded to the petitioner by the respondent.

9. The applications, being CM No.20144/2011, CM No.12835/2012 and CM No.11222/2011 are accordingly disposed of.

10. It is made clear that in case the said amount is not paid by the petitioner within two months from today, the order dated 12th July, 2011 for stay the execution shall be treated as vacated and the respondent would be entitled to execute the impugned order in accordance with law. RC. Rev. No.224/2011

11. Pleadings are complete. Let Trial Court record be requisitioned forthwith. Both the parties are allowed to file the written submissions within four weeks from today. List on 12th February, 2014.

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE OCTOBER 21, 2013