Om Prakash vs Smt. Panchi Devi
2014 Latest Caselaw 2134 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RSA No. 65/2012 & CM No. 6961/2012 (stay)

%                                                      29th April, 2014

OM PRAKASH                                           ......Appellant
                          Through:       Mr. Lalit Kumar Laarn, Advocate.


                          VERSUS

SMT. PANCHI DEVI                                          ...... Respondent
                          Through:       Mr. Jitender Mehta, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    This second appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC against the

concurrent judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit of the

respondent/plaintiff/landlord for possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

The suit has been decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC because if a premise

is newly constructed in Delhi, then, by virtue of Section 3(d) of the Delhi

Rent Control Act, 1958, for a period of 10 years of construction the tenants

will not get the protection of the Rent Control Act.




RSA 65/2012                                                                   Page 1 of 3
 2.            Though the suit was filed not on the ground of the premises

being outside the Rent Control Act by virtue of Section 3(d) but Section

3(c) because the rent was stated to be Rs.7150/- per month, and in which

case premises are outside the Rent Control Act as the rent is more than

Rs.3500/-, however, the appellant-defendant in the written statement

admitted in para-2 of the reply on merits that the suit property was

constructed in the year 2008.       The suit property was let out to the

appellant/defendant/tenant in the year 2010, and therefore, since letting out

is within 10 years, of the property being newly constructed, consequently,

the respondent/plaintiff/landlord filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6

CPC for decreeing of the suit on the basis of the admitted facts as per

Section 3(d) and the suit was accordingly decreed. I may note that to

shorten the litigation, it has been repeatedly held that courts can take notice

of admitted facts and new or subsequent events under Order 7 Rule 7 CPC,

and which aspect I am observing because though the tenancy was said to be

outside the protection of the Rent Control Act not on the ground of Section

3(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as pleaded in the plaint but because

of Section 3(c), however, courts are never powerless to do justice once

undisputed facts come on record.


RSA 65/2012                                                                 Page 2 of 3
 3.            In the present case, there is a categorical admission in the reply

on merits para 2 of the written statement of the suit property being newly

constructed in the year 2008 and let out in the year 2010. The suit itself had

been filed in the year 2011. The premises are hence outside the protection of

the Delhi Rent Control Act as per the admitted facts appearing on record.


4.    In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises under

Section 100 CPC and the appeal is accordingly dismissed, leaving the

parties to bear their own costs.




APRIL 29, 2014                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib