Ms. Pinki Jain vs Smt. Suman Bala Bhasin
2017 Latest Caselaw 5473 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RFA No. 844/2017

%                                                27th September, 2017

MS. PINKI JAIN                                          ..... Appellant
                          Through:       Ms. Aruna Kumari Pawar and
                                         Ms. Shabista Nabi, Advocates
                          versus

SMT. SUMAN BALA BHASIN                                ..... Respondent

                 Through:                Mr. Shohit Chaudhry and Mr.
                                         Anuj Jhawar, Advocates

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

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

Caveat No. 865/2017

     Counsel for the caveator enters appearance.

     Caveat stands discharged.

C.M. Appl. No. 36048/2017 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

RFA No. 844/2017 and C.M. Appl. No. 36047/2017 (for stay)

1. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the judgment of the

trial court dated 25.08.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the

suit for the relief of possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

2. The suit property is LIG Flat bearing No. D-1C/18A,

Ground Floor, Janak Puri, New Delhi. There is no dispute that there is

a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is also not

in dispute as per the written statement that the rate of rent is above

Rs.3,500/- per month and thus there is no protection of the Delhi Rent

Control Act, 1958. Application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC had

been allowed to the extent that the appellant/defendant shall pay the

admitted rent at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month.

3. In Delhi, once there exists a relationship between

landlord and tenant between the parties and the rate of rent is above

Rs.3,500/- per month, there is no registered lease deed for the tenanted

premises for a period, then, by serving a notice under Section 106 of

the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the suit for possession can be filed.

Infact, there is no need of sending of a legal notice under Section 106

of the Transfer of Property Act, because service of summons of the

suit have been taken by the Courts to be service of notice under

Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act vide M/s. Jeevan Diesels

and Electricals Limited Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and Anr.

(2011) 183 DLT 712.

4. Therefore, once all the aspects as to existence of

relationship of landlord and tenant, rate of rent being above Rs.3,500/-

per month and service of summons in the suit being taken as service

under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the trial court has

committed no illegality in decreeing the suit.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argues that

the courts at Dwarka, New Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction because

territorial jurisdiction will be of the District Court, Central in Tis

Hazari Courts. It is argued that the suit plot falls under the jurisdiction

of Police Station Maya Puri and Police Station Maya Puri is under the

jurisdiction of the District Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi

and not at Dwarka Courts.

6. In my opinion, false and frivolous defences are not

bonafide disputed questions of fact which require trial. After all, all

the properties are in Delhi and issue of territorial jurisdiction is not an

issue of lack of inherent jurisdiction. Issues of territorial and pecuniary

jurisdiction are not issues of lack of inherent jurisdiction because such

objections can be waived as per Section 21 CPC. Also a self-serving

pleading without any substantiation would only be a mantra and

uttering of a mantra of lack of territorial jurisdiction does not mean

that sufficient pleading exist to show that the courts at Delhi do not

have jurisdiction. Order VI Rule 4 CPC requires that wherever

appropriate particulars are to be given then such particulars should be

given and therefore it was upon the appellant/defendant/tenant to give

particulars as per various notifications issued by this Court as to how

the Courts at Dwarka do not have jurisdiction.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff/landlord has

filed in this Court notification dated 19.7.2016 whereby the civil cases

of Janakpuri were transferred to Dwarka Courts. This notification

being a gazette notification is a public document and therefore this

Court can refer to the same. This notification reads as under:-

"(TO BE PUBLISHED IN DELHI GAZETTE PART-IV EXTRA-

ORDINARY) GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORIAL OF DELHI DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS 8TH LEVEL, C-WING, DELHI SECRETARIAT, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002 No.F.1/3/2013-Judl./P.F./Suptlaw/671-683 Dated the 19 July, 2016 NOTIFICATION No.F.1/3/2013-Judl./P.F./Suptlaw/671-683 : In exercise of the powers conferred by sections 19 and 20 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (Punjab Act 6 of 1918) as extended to the National Capital Territory of Delhi and sections 7,

8 and 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), and in continuation of earlier Notification Nos.F.6/33/89-Judl./Vol.I/814-824 dated the 17th October 2012 and No. F.6/33/89 Judl./Vol.I/803-813 dated the 17th October 2012, the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, hereby reorganizes the West and South West Civil Districts/Sessions Divisions/ Metropolitan Areas of Delhi inasmuch as transfer of three police stations viz. Uttam Nagar, Vikas Puri and Janak Puri from the West District to the South-West District so as to enable the cases under their jurisdiction be filed in the Sessions division at Dwarka Court Complex. However, the existing criminal cases relating to police stations Uttam Nagar, Vikaspuri and Janakpuri, which were filed and are pending in the Sessions Courts at Tis Hazari will not be transferred to the Sessions Courts at Dwarka. Further, a new police station at Vikas Nagar, is envisaged. The police station will comprise of substantial areas presently under the police station Ranhoula. The said police station at Vikas Nagar when established will form part of South-West Sessions Division. Accordingly, criminal cases emanating from Police Station at Vikas Nagar will be filed in the Sessions division at Dwarka Court Complex. Further, new civil cases filed on or after cut-off date, relating / pertaining to territorial jurisdiction of the eight villages viz. Boudhela, Nangli Jalib, Posangipur, Asalat Pur Khadar, Hastsal, Raja Pur Khurd, Nawada Mazara Hastal and Matiala of erstwhile West District, will be filed at the District Court Complex at Dwarka. However, existing or cases already filed before a cut-off date, which can be fixed, will not be transferred and will be dealt with and adjudicated in the District Court Complex at Tis Hazari. The territorial limits of West and South West Civil Districts/ Sessions Divisions/ Metropolitan Areas of Delhi, after the hereinabove re-organization thereof, shall be co-terminus, with slight variance, with the West and South- West District Jurisdiction as notified vide Notification No. F. PS/Div. Com/Misc./2011/1796 dated the 17th June 2015 issued by the Revenue Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. This notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the official Gazette.

By order and in the Name of the Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi.

Sd/-

(O.P. MISHRA) Additional Secretary (Law, Justice & L.A.)"

(underlining added)

8. In view of the above the appeal is totally frivolous.

Appellant/defendant/tenant who does not have a registered lease deed

in her favour is dishonestly continuing to stay in the tenanted premises

after termination of tenancy.

9. At this stage, after the judgment was dictated it is stated

that the appellant/defendant will vacate the suit premises and

appellant/defendant be granted time to vacate the suit premises till

31.12.2017. It is also stated that since admittedly the rate of rent is not

paid since April, 2017 at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month,

appellant/defendant will clear arrears of rent at this rate within a

period of two weeks from today. Future charges month by month will

be positively paid by 15th of each month. Appellant/defendant will

clear all charges towards electricity and water, etc. as payable for the

suit premises every month till the appellant/defendant stays in

possession of the premises. Payment of rent in terms of the present

order is a tentative assessment with respect to payment of rent or

mesne profits as claimed by the respondent/plaintiff and which aspects

of money decree will be finally decided as these issues are pending

disposal before the trial court so far as the relief of recovery of

moneys and mesne profits which are claimed by the

respondent/plaintiff.

10. Let the appellant/defendant/tenant file an undertaking in

this Court in terms of the present order within a period of one week

from today and on the appellant/defendant filing the undertaking and

complying with the terms of the undertaking the appellant/defendant

will get time to vacate the suit premises on or before 31.12.2017.

11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of as not pressed but

the appellant/defendant is given time to vacate the suit premises on or

before 30.12.2017 in terms of the aforesaid observations.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2017                          VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
P