Delhi High Court
Neelam Bhalla vs Jagdish Kumar on 7 March, 2017
$~A-37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 07.03.2017
+ RC.REV. 115/2017
NEELAM BHALLA ..... Petitioner
Through Dr.Anurag Kumar Agarwal and
Mr.Umesh Mishra, Advocates
versus
JAGDISH KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
CM No.9281/2017
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
RC.REV. 115/2017
1. The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section
25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the
DRC Act) to impugn the order dated 11.01.2017 by which order the
Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred as the ARC) dismissed the
eviction petition on the ground that there is no municipal identity of the
premises and that the petitioner is in defiance of the Municipal Laws. It
however permitted the petitioner to again approach the court after due
compliance of the Municipal Laws.
2. The petitioner filed the present eviction petition under Section
RC.REV.115/2017 Page 1
14(1)(e) read with Section 25 B of the DRC Act regarding municipal
premises No. 16-A/1, New Krishna Nagar, New Delhi-110051. It is urged
that the property was purchased vide a sale deed dated 24.01.2006 which is
duly registered. There are four shops on the ground floor. It is also urged
that the petitioner has been paying property tax in respect of the said
property from time to time. The respondent/tenant was in possession of one
shop out of the four shops and is said to be running a business of property
dealing in the name and style of J.K.Properties. The shop, it is stated, is
required bona fide by the petitioner for his requirements and hence, the
eviction petition was filed.
3. The eviction petition came up for hearing on 09.02.2015 when notice
was issued to the respondent returnable for 15.07.2015. Prior to the next
date, the petitioner is said to have inspected the file and came to know that
the summons sent through registered post and Process Server remained
unserved and were returned to the court. The Process Server had visited the
tenanted premises and found the shop shut. He has also mentioned that
whenever he visited the said shop for service of summons, he found the door
of the shop closed. He has also noted that when he reached the other address
of the respondent where he resides, the daughter of the respondent said that
the father was not at home. Hence, on 14.08.2015 the petitioner moved an
application for substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC praying for
service of summons by way of affixation. The said simple application for
substituted service was kept pending for a long period. On 10.11.2016 after
a lapse of considerable time, the petitioner moved a transfer petition for
transfer of the petition. On 14.12.2016, the District Judge directed the ARC
to dispose of the said application for substituted service within one month.
RC.REV.115/2017 Page 2
Thereafter, the present impugned order has been passed.
4. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the ARC concluded
that the premises must be identified by a municipal number. It also noted
that a shop's valuation for the purpose of taxation shall be different from
that of the property used for residence and also for purpose of prevention of
nuisance. It also noted that the approved lay out and drawing/structure must
be within the knowledge of the Corporation. It also noted that the premises
in the present case is different from the building in which it is situated in
nature, structure and usage. Its identity cannot be identified by a sign board
alone. It also noted that the property owners in municipal areas are not at
liberty to convert/construct properties without intimation and consent of the
Government/Municipal Corporation. It concluded that the petitioner is
bound to produce the municipal identity of the premises. The petitioner is
bound to inform the municipal corporation regarding the existence and
nature of the premises and seek approval of its existence. As no municipal
identity of the premises which would distinctly and comprehensively
establish the identity of the premises was found to exist, the ARC dismissed
the eviction petition at the threshold.
5. I may note that the eviction petition has been dismissed without even
issuance of the notice to the respondent. Hence I do not feel the need to
serve the respondent in the present case.
6. It is manifest from the impugned order that the ARC is extremely
concerned with the compliance of the municipal laws. The ARC forgot that
the concerned municipal authorities were not before the court. No objection
was raised regarding alleged non-compliance of various legal provisions of
the DMC Act by the petitioner. There was nothing on record to show that
RC.REV.115/2017 Page 3
the petitioner has violated the municipal laws. Further, it was not the duty of
the Rent Controller to enforce the concerned municipal laws while
adjudicating an eviction petition.
7. Regarding the identity of the premises, the ARC himself has rightly
relied upon Section 2(i) of the DRC Act which reads as follows:-
"(i) "premises" means any building or part of a building which
is, or is intended to be, let separately for use as a residence or
for commercial use or for any other purpose, and includes.-
(i) the garden, grounds and outhouses, if any, appertaining to
such building or part of the building;
(ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such
building or part of the building;
but does not include a room in a hotel or lodging house;"
8. The Supreme Court in Kamla Devi v. Laxmi Devi, (2000) 5 SCC 646,
held as follows:
"10. A combined reading of the definitions of the terms,
quoted above, shows that the term "premises" implies the
subject-matter of tenancy in respect of which there is jural
relationship of landlord and tenant and in respect of which the
quantum of rent is agreed to between him."
9. Hence, the premises for the purpose of the DRC Act means a
premises in respect of which there is a jural relationship of landlord and
tenant and the quantum of rent is agreed upon. Such a premises could be a
part of a building as in the present case. Municipal Corporation does not
necessarily allot separate distinct municipal numbers to part of a premises.
Neither is there any such mandatory requirement which would make it
RC.REV.115/2017 Page 4
mandatory for the petitioner to ensure separate municipal numbers for part
of the premises prior to letting the same out. Quite often a landlord may own
a large building and choose to let out only a small portion of the building. In
such an eventuality, he is not obliged to have the let out portion officially
marked and numbered separately from the municipal corporation as a
distinct separate number of the property. Quite often, people give private
numbers to such portions which are not recognised by the Municipal
Corporation. No such requirement is stated in the DRC Act.
10. It may also be noted Section 25B of the DRC Act which deals with
eviction petition under Section 14(1) (e) of the Act is a self contained code
(Ref: Precision Steel and Engineering Works Ltd. v. Prem Deva Niranjan
Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518). Hence, when dealing with an application
under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the ARC is obliged to follow the
procedure stated in Section 25 B of the Act. He is not to travel to other
statutory provisions like the DMC Act, as done in the present case.
11. It is manifest that the impugned order suffers from material illegality
and cannot be sustained. The impugned order is accordingly quashed. The
matter is remanded back to the ARC for afresh consideration from the stage
at which the matter was pending. The ARC may deal with the petition
expeditiously keeping in view the time already taken in disposing of the
application for substituted service.
12. The petition stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
13. The parties to appear before the concerned ARC on 20.03.2017.
MARCH 07, 2017/rb JAYANT NATH, J
RC.REV.115/2017 Page 5
