Sh. Malkhan Singh vs Sh. Munazar Ali & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5620 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          C.R.P.No. 158/2014 & CM No. 18251/2014

%                                                       10th November, 2014

SH. MALKHAN SINGH                                ......Revisionist/Petitioner
                           Through:      None.


                           VERSUS

SH. MUNAZAR ALI & ANR.                                  ...... Respondents
                  Through:                None.

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

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.             The challenge by means of this petition under Section 115 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned order of the

trial court dated 22.9.2014 by which an application filed by the

petitioner/plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was dismissed. The subject

suit is a suit for possession filed by the petitioner/plaintiff claiming that he is

the owner of the suit property bearing Municipal No. 241, Block D-5,

Sultanpuri, Delhi-110086. Respondent no.1/defendant no.1 is pleaded to be

a tenant in the suit property.


CRP 158/2014                                                                    Page 1 of 3
 2.              In Delhi civil courts have jurisdiction to try the suit for

possession with respect to the relationship of landlord and tenant either when

the rent is above Rs.3500/- per month or premises are not situated within the

area of operation of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In the present case,

the latter of the two aspects which is in issue inasmuch as petitioner/plaintiff

claims that the suit property is not covered under the area of operation of the

Delhi Rent Control Act.


3.              The impugned order in para 3 reproduces the interim

application filed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, and nowhere in the same

there is an averment that the suit be decreed because admittedly the premises

are outside the area to which the Delhi Rent Control Act applies. I may also

note that the petitioner/plaintiff has not filed before this Court the issues

framed in the suit inasmuch as even the copy of the plaint filed does not

show that in any para thereof possession is claimed from the respondent

no.1/defendant no.1 on the ground that tenancy is not covered under the area

of operation of the Delhi Rent Control Act and on the contrary plaint prima

facie   appears to have been filed on the basis that the rate of rent is

Rs.3,600/- p.m i.e more than Rs.3,500/- p.m. for the Delhi Rent Control Act

not to apply.

CRP 158/2014                                                                 Page 2 of 3
 4.             In view of the above, I do not think that there exists any

admissions for the suit to be decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, much less

on the ground that the premises in question are situated in an area where the

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 does not apply.


5.             Dismissed.




NOVEMBER 10, 2014                           VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib