Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar Gupta vs Babu Lal (Since Deceased) Thru His ... on 26 November, 2014
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 26, 2014
+ RSA 361/2014
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena & Ms. Usha
Saxena, Advocates
versus
BABU LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THR HIS LRS... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
CM No. 19472/2014 (exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
RSA 361/2014
The concurrent findings of both the courts below are that appellant
is liable to vacate the suit property and is also liable to pay the arrears of
rent. The factual matrix of this case stands noted in the opening
paragraphs of the impugned judgment and needs no reiteration.
Suffice it would be to note that as per respondents, the rent was
`.400/- per month whereas according to appellant, rent was `650/- per
month. The Rent Agreement relied upon by the respondents-plaintiffs is
said to be forged. Except this bald assertion of appellant, there is no
RSA No.361/2014 Page 1
material on record to show that the Rent Agreement in question is forged
and no other Rent Agreement has been set up by appellant.
At the hearing, learned counsel for appellant submitted that
succession as provided in Section 2(1)(iii) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 will not apply to commercial tenancy and as per general law of
succession, the class one heirs including the appellant steps into the shoes
of the deceased tenant. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the
courts below have gone wrong in excluding oral evidence by resort to
Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 because it is the case of
appellant that the Rent Agreement (Ex.1/7) is forged. The bar of Section
50 of Delhi Rent Control Act is sought to be raised to resist respondents-
plaintiffs' suit for possession and the claim for the arrears of rent etc.
On the aspect of respondents' suit being barred by Section 50 of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, the findings returned in the impugned
judgment are as under:-
"In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion,
that the Ld. Trial Court had rightly held that it was the father of
the present appellant and not the present appellant, who was
the tenant in the premises; that the tenancy of the father of the
present appellant had been validly terminated as per law; that
thereafter only the mother of the present appellant could have
continued in possession of the suit premises after the death of
his father (in view of the provisions of DRC Act as mentioned
above); that the present appellant could not have succeeded to
the tenancy rights of his father was only a statutory tenant in
the suit premises after the termination of his tenancy. Hence,
RSA No.361/2014 Page 2
the present respondent had rightly filed the civil suit, from
which this present appeal arises, against the present appellant
for handing over the vacant possession of the premises."
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment, trial court
judgment and material on record, I find that the afore-noted findings in
the impugned judgment suffers from no perversity. Since appellant is
found to be not a statutory tenant, therefore, bar of Section 50 of The
Delhi Rent Control Act would not apply and suit for possession would lie.
As per Section 2(1)(iii) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , the
status of appellant would be of a statutory tenant and the aforesaid
provision of law nowhere distinguishes a tenancy from commercial
tenancy. In view of the decision in Gian Devi Anand Vs. Jeevan Kumar
AIR 1985 SC 796 , statutory tenancy in respect of commercial premises is
heritable but the inheritance has to be in terms of Section 2(1)(iii) (a) of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
In the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial question of
law arises in this second appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed
with no order as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 26, 2014
r
RSA No.361/2014 Page 3
