Bhartiya Lok Suraksha Sansthan & ... vs Ajai Pratap& Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 555 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                               RSA No.29/2015
                                      Decided on : 20th January, 2015

    BHARTIYA LOK SURAKSHA SANSTHAN & ANR ..... Appellants
                       Through:      Mr.Krishna Dev Pandey, Adv.

                       versus

    AJAI PRATAP& ANR.                                   ..... Respondents
                 Through:            None.

    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
    V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

CM No. 1063/2015

1. Allowed subject to deficiency being rectified.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM No. 1064/2015

1. The delay of 83 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned as

sufficient cause is shown.

RSA No.29/2015

1. This is a regular second appeal filed against judgment, order

and decree dated 16th August, 2014 passed by learned Additional

District Judge.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

3. The only question which is formulated by the learned counsel

for the appellants is that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to

try and decide the matter with regard to the eviction of the present

appellants. It has been contended that the rate of rent of the

appellants/defendants in respect of the tenanted premises was only

Rs.1,000/- per month while as the trial court has taken the monthly

rate of rent as Rs.5,000/- and thus has fallen into error. Accordingly it

is contended that this is a substantial question of law which arises for

consideration before this Court.

4. I have heard the submission made by the learned counsel for

the appellants.

5. The respondents/plaintiffs has filed a suit for ejectment of the

present appellants/defendants from the suit premises in the Civil

Court. Apart from possession, the respondents had also claimed

arrears of rent, electricity and water charges as well as mesne profits.

It was the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that the appellants was

inducted as a tenant @ Rs.5,000/- per month which he had failed to

pay consequently resulting into filing a suit against the present

appellants.

5. Appellants took the plea that they were admittedly tenants,

however, the rate of rent was Rs.1,000/- and because of that fact the

jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred to entertain the suit for

ejectment. Reliance was placed on Section 50 of the Delhi Rent

Control Act, 1958.

6. After framing of the following isuses, the Court recorded the

evidence of the parties.

"1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred in view of the Section 50 of the DRC Act? OPD

2. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed material fact or has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for want of cause of action? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of the suit amount as prayed for? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession agianst the defendant, as prayed for?

6. Relief."

7. The very first issue framed was as to whether the suit of the

respondents/plaintiffs was barred in view of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The onus of proof of said issue was put on

the appellants/defendants.

8. In order to prove the aforesaid issue, the respondent No.1 had

examined himself as a witness as PW-1. He had deposed that the

appellants/defendants had specifically mentioned the rate of rent as

Rs.5,000/- in respect of the tenanted premises. PW-2, a property

dealer had stated that similar premises in the area would have fetched

around Rs.9,000/-. Both these witnesses were subjected to cross-

examination, however, their testimony was not discredited. The

appellant No.2/defendant No.2 entered into the witness box and

supported his case that the rent was Rs.1,000/- per month, however,

previously while cross-examining PW-1, the appellants' counsel gave

a suggestion that the rent at the time of conception of the tenancy was

Rs.1,500/- The learned trial Court, after analysing the evidence took

note of the fact that the stand of the appellants/defendants in the

written statement was at variance with the cross-examination to which

the respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 was put and accordingly

disbelieved the testimony of appellants/defendants. It held that the

jurisdiction of the civil suit was not barred.

9. The aforesaid holding that the jurisdiction of the civil court was

not barred, was upheld by the First Appellate Court on the appeal

filed by the present appellant. The aforesaid holding is sought to be

challenged in the present second appeal.

10. The question as to whether the rent of the premises was 'X' or

'Y' is a question of fact which has concurrently being decided against

the appellants by the two courts below. Holding that the rent of the

suit premises was Rs.5,000/- and because of the said reason, the

jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred under Section 50 of the

Delhi Rent Control Act as admittedly the rent has been held to be

more than Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly the aforesaid submission in my

view does not raise any substantial question of law and is only a

question of fact. It does not, however, warrant issuance of notice to

the respondents. The appeal of the appellants is accordingly

dismissed as being without any merit.

CM Nos.1062/2015

1. No further directions are called for on this application.

2. The application stands disposed of.

V.K. SHALI, J JANUARY 20, 2015/nk