Delhi High Court
Anita Bhandari vs Ved Kaur & Ors. on 7 November, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th November, 2014
+ RSA 314/2014
ANITA BHANDARI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajesh Baweja, Advocate with
appellant in person
versus
VED KAUR & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(Oral)
Caveat No. 957/2014 (u/S 148-A CPC)
Respondent is represented through counsel.
Caveat stands discharged.
C.M.No.17896/2014
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
RSA 314/2014 & C.M.No.17895/2014 (for stay)
In respondent‟s suit for ejectment in respect of Shop No.C-20,
Main Road, Opposite SBI, Masoodpur, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, a
jurisdictional issue was treated as preliminary Issue No.1, which reads as
under:-
RSA NO. 314/2014 Page 1
"(i) This court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit
for ejectment as the jurisdiction of this court is barred under
Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act."
The aforesaid preliminary Issue was decided against appellant-
defendant while holding as under:-
"15. In view of the judgments relied upon by the plaintiff, it is
clear that for the application of DRC Act, a specific
notification to that effect is required and admittedly, there is
no notification for the purpose of application of DRC Act to
the area in question. Therefore, it is clear that the DRC Act is
not applicable to the area in question and the suit is not barred
by Section 50 of DRC Act. Admittedly, Issue No.1 is decided in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant."
The First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment of 30th August,
2014 has affirmed the findings of the trial court on the jurisdictional issue
as well as on other issues.
The factual narration of this case needs no reproduction as it stands
noticed in the judgments of the courts below. Suffice would it be to note
that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not
disputed and the rate of rent @`500/- per month is also not in dispute.
The controversy in this appeal centers around the name of village wherein
the suit property was located. Though village "Maksoodpur" has been
notified under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Act, 1957 vide
Notification of 23rd April, 1982 but there is no Notification in respect of
village "Masoodpur".
RSA NO. 314/2014 Page 2
At the hearing of this appeal, it was vehemently contended by
learned counsel for appellant that the actual name of the village in
question where the suit property is situated is "Maksoodpur" but with the
passage of time, the syllable „K‟ became silent and it is now known as
"Masoodpur" and so, the bar of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act
applies.
Attention of this Court was drawn by learned counsel for appellant
to information of 14th October, 2014 [Annexure- G (colly)] received
under Right to Information Act, 2005 to point out that the concerned Sub-
Divisional Magistrate (SDM) had reported that village "Maksoodpur" &
village "Masoodpur" are one and the same village.
Learned counsel for respondent pointed out that this document has
been simply placed before this Court for the first time and so it cannot be
looked into. Learned counsel for respondent disputed the correctness of
the SDM report and had submitted that appropriate steps would be taken
to get it corrected.
Learned counsel for respondent pointed out that appellant has
relied upon Notification No. TCO/82/47 of Municipal Corporation of
Delhi dated 23rd April, 1982 issued under the Delhi Rent Control Act
where the name of village in question has been spelt out as „Maksoodpur‟
and the Zone within which it falls is shown to be „West Delhi" whereas
the village in question falls in "South West Delhi" and there is no
Notification under the Delhi Rent Control Act for Village Masoodpur.
It was pointed out by learned counsel for respondent that the list of
Districts and Sub-division wise villages, issued by Government of NCT
of Delhi (Annexure-J), clearly indicates that Peeragarhi & Nangoli fall in
RSA NO. 314/2014 Page 3
West Zone and in Punjabi Bagh area whereas village in question is near
Vasant Vihar, which is in "South West Zone" as per the aforesaid list
(Annexure-J).
The photocopy of Notification (Annexure-E), photocopy of List of
Urbanized Villages issued by Government of NCT of Delhi (Annexure-K)
and photocopy of List of District & Sub-Division wise villages issued by
Department of Revenue (Annexure-J), are not disputed.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for appellant had
placed reliance upon decisions in Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Vs. Jasbir
Singh Chadha (2010) 6 SCC 601; V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. Vs. Board of
Trustees of Port of Murmugao (2005) 4 SCC 613; State Bank of India Vs.
M/S Midland Industries & ors. AIR 1988 Delhi 153; M/S Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.S.Kareem 2004 AIHC 2738; Vishwa
Nath & ors. Vs. Ramraj & ors. AIR 1991 Allahabad 193; Gyaniram Vs.
Gulab Chand AIR 1961 Rajasthan 21; Pool Chand Jain & ors. Vs. Jotri
Devi Jain & ors. 2002 AIHC 289 & Prem Lata Malhtora Vs. Shiv Nath
Sharma AIR 1997 J&K 130 to contend that the admissions made must be
clear, unequivocal and unconditional and misconstruction of documents
can be gone into in the second appeal.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned judgment, trial court
judgment and the material on record, I do find that after passing of the
impugned judgment and trial court judgment, information of 13th
October, 2014 received under Right to Information Act, 2005 which
indicates that Village "Maksoodpur @ Masoodpur" is one village only.
However, this information was not placed before the courts below and
nor it has been proved by way of additional evidence. In the considered
RSA NO. 314/2014 Page 4
opinion of this Court, the information of 13th October, 2014 received
under Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be accepted for the reason
that in the Notification of 22nd April, 1982 [Annexure-E], Village
Maksoodpur, Nangloi and Garhi Peera are shown to be falling in "West
Delhi", whereas in the List of Urbanized Villages (Annexure-J) issued by
Government of NCT of Delhi, village "Masoodpur" is shown to be in
Vasant Vihar falling in "South-West Delhi" and Nangloi as well as Garhi
Peera are said to be falling in "West Delhi" in the Punjabi Bagh area.
In view of aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the
findings returned on Issue No.1 by the courts below do not suffer from
any perversity. The decisions relied upon by counsel for appellant have
no application to the instant case. No substantial question of law arises in
this second appeal. This appeal and application are accordingly
dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 07, 2014
r
RSA NO. 314/2014 Page 5
