Delhi High Court
Shakuntala Devi & Ors. vs Suresh Jain on 6 January, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No. 2/2014
% 6th January, 2014
SHAKUNTALA DEVI & ORS. ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sunny Arora and Ms. Shweta
Goel, Advocates.
VERSUS
SURESH JAIN ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No.130/2014 (delay in refiling)
Delay in refiling is condoned. CM stands disposed of.
RSA 2/2014
1. The challenge by means of this regular second appeal filed under
Section 100 CPC is to the impugned judgment of the appellate court dated
23.9.2013 which set asides the order dated 11.5.2012 of the trial court
dismissing the suit as not maintainable in the civil court on the ground that
RSA 2/2014 Page 1 of 4
the rate of rent was Rs. 20 per month and therefore only Delhi Rent Control
Act had jurisdiction.
2. In Delhi where the premises are governed by the Delhi Rent Control
Act, a tenant is defined under the Act in Section 2(l). As per the various
judicial pronouncements, whereas a residential tenancy is inherited only by a
limited number of legal heirs, and that too only such legal heirs living with
the deceased tenant at the time of his death and financially dependent upon
him, a commercial tenancy is inheritable by all the legal heirs. Therefore
when the legal heir of the deceased does not fall in the definition of a tenant
under Section 2(l), he does not inherit the tenancy and does not become a
tenant of the landlord under the DRC Act. The present suit was a suit
alleging that the tenancy was a residential tenancy, the said contractual
residential tenancy was terminated by a legal notice, and that the tenant did
not leave behind any legal heirs who were residing with the tenant at the
time of his death and nor were they financially dependent on the deceased
inasmuch as the original tenant had only one son who was conducting a
separate business at separate premises and not living with his father-tenant.
3. A reading of the order of the trial court which is of about just 12 odd
lines shows that none of the aspects with respect to Section 2(l) of the Delhi
RSA 2/2014 Page 2 of 4
Rent Control Act stated above have been discussed and the suit was
dismissed in limine only on the ground that the rent was Rs.20 per month.
Obviously, this was a wrong order because disputed questions of fact as to
who were the legal heirs, as to whether notice was served terminating the
contractual tenancy, whether the legal heirs were residing with the deceased
tenant and whether such legal heir was financially dependent on the tenant
are disputed questions which required trial. Obviously, the trial court failed
to understand that even if the rent is only Rs.20 per month, in case such a
tenancy is a residential tenancy, then if the tenant dies after the contractual
tenancy is terminated, and the legal heirs as specified in Section 2(l) of the
Rent Control Act are not living with the deceased tenant and are not
financially dependent on the deceased tenant, then the legal heirs are not
tenants under DRT Act and a suit for possession is maintainable against
them in the civil court. There thus as per the suit plaint existed disputed
questions of fact, which the plaintiff on proving by leading evidence would
have been entitled to a decree for possession from the civil court, and such
suits therefore could not have been dismissed at the threshold simply on the
ground that rent is Rs.20 per month only.
RSA 2/2014 Page 3 of 4
4. In view of the above, there is no error in the impugned judgment. I
may state that it is time that unnecessary filing of appeals should be
discouraged, more so in cases where the facts and law are so crystal clear.
No doubt, judicial process can be accessed, and must be accessed in cases
where there is even a reasonable point of view to be urged, but in the present
appeal there are none and the same is quite clearly a wastage of judicial time
in view of the settled law as prevailing in Delhi.
5. The appeal is hence dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-. Costs shall
be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Aid Services Committee
within a period of four weeks from today.
6. List before the Registrar General for compliance of the order for
deposit of costs by the appellant on 20.2.2014. In case, the appellant does
not deposit the costs within a period of four weeks, the Registrar General
thereafter can recover such costs for being deposited with the Delhi High
Court Legal Aid Services Committee as arrears of land revenue.
JANUARY 06, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
