Delhi High Court
Ravi Bhushan vs Rajiv Mehra & Anr on 12 October, 2023
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 10.07.2023
Judgment pronounced on: 12.10.2023
+ C.M. (M) 572 of 2019 & CM APPPL. 16914/2019
RAVI BHUSHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harshbir Singh Kohli,
Adv
Versus
RAJIV MEHRA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Ms.
Shambhavi Kala, Mr. Zubin John,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
JUDGMENT
: JASMEET SINGH, J
1. The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking setting aside the impugned order dated
22.10.2018 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal (Central)
wherein the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed in part.
2. Vide the said order 22.10.2018, appeal bearing RCT No. 30331/2016
filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment 18.10.2011 passed
by the learned ARC in E No. 13/2009 was dismissed and the second
appeal bearing RCT No. 30357/2016 filed by the respondents was
Signature Not Verified
By:AMIT ARORA
Signing Date:12.10.2023
18:59:31
allowed under section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
(in short "DRC Act") and the matter was sent back to the learned
ARC for consideration of grant of benefit under section 14(2) of the
DRC Act. Petitioner herein has only challenged the order of allowing
of the appeal filed by the respondents and has not challenged the
order of dismissal of his appeal.
3. The facts in the instant case are not much in dispute. The respondents
filed an eviction petition against the petitioner/tenant under Section
14 (1)(a), (c) &(j) of the DRC Act with respect to the first floor
portion of property bearing Municipal No. 4680, Mahavir Bazar,
Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Church Mission Road, Delhi-110006
(hereinafter referred as 'demised premises').
4. The demised premises was let out at monthly rent of Rs. 180/-
excluding electricity and water charges. The petitioner was irregular
in payment of rent and a notice dated 11.09.1999 was sent by the
respondents to the petitioner.
5. The rent for the period of 11.03.1999 to 10.08.1999 was received by
the respondents without prejudice to their rights before the learned
ARC and the petitioner is depositing the subsequent period rent
which the respondents are receiving.
6. It was alleged that the petitioner has caused substantial damage to the
demised premises and demolished the wall in the stair case coming
from the ground floor to first floor and also removed the latrine
structure and converted that space into a room and despite notice he
has not removed the unauthorized construction.
7. Therefore, the petitioner was/is in the illegal possession of the
Signature Not Verified
By:AMIT ARORA
Signing Date:12.10.2023
18:59:31
portion constructed in the demised premises without the consent of
the respondents. Consequently, the contractual tenancy has been
terminated with the time mentioned in the agreement as the said
agreement has not been renewed and vide legal notice dated
11.09.1999. The petitioner used the converted space for other
purposes than it was let out and the petitioner damaged the demised
premises and therefore, damages to the tune of Rs. 30,000 per month
from the date of termination of the tenancy was also claimed.
8. Upon summons being served to the petitioner, written statement was
filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein relationship between the
landlord and tenant, and rate of rent was admitted but the extent of
tenancy and purpose of letting was denied. The petitioner further
stated that since inception of the tenancy, the demised premises is
being used for commercial purposes and categorically denied the site
plan filed by the respondents and filed the correct site plan of the
demised premises. It was also stated that the respondents refuse to
accept the rent.
9. It was further stated that no unauthorised construction or demolition
was made in the demised premises and it is in the same shape as it
was let out more than twenty years back.
10. Replication to the written statement was filed by the respondents
reiterating the contents of the eviction petition.
11. Evidence was led by the parties and after perusing the material and
evidence available on record, the learned ARC dismissed the petition
under section 14(1)(a) and (c) of the DRC Act as no cause of action
was found. As far as 14(1)(j) was concerned, learned ARC upheld
Signature Not Verified
By:AMIT ARORA
Signing Date:12.10.2023
18:59:31
the petition and directed to remove the additional structure in the
demised premises in view of 14(10) of the DRC Act.
12. Both the parties assailed the above order in appeals filed under
section 38 of the DRC Act before the Rent Control Tribunal.
13. Learned tribunal decided both the appeals vide common order dated
22.10.2018 wherein the learned tribunal allowed the appeal of the
respondents in part as the matter was sent back to the learned ARC
for consideration of grant of benefit under section 14(2) of the DRC
Act and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
14. Assailing the above order passed by the learned Tribunal, the instant
petition has been filed by the petitioner.
15. I have in RC Rev No. 341of 2018 allowed the eviction petition filed
by the respondents in respect of the same demised premises herein
under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act and set aside the order dated
17.03.2018 passed by the learned ARC.
16. Since an eviction order has already been passed in respect of
demised premises herein in RC Rev No. 341 of 2018, I am of the
view that the present petition along with pending application has
become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.
JASMEET SINGH, J
OCTOBER 12th, 2023 / (MSQ)
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
By:AMIT ARORA
Signing Date:12.10.2023
18:59:31
