H. R. MALHOTRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order passed on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 filed by the appellant.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stating the facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for possession with the prayer for a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants as well as a decree for recovery of arrears of rents and decree for recovery of damages/mesne profits. The appellant filed written statement. Thereafter in view of the written statement filed by the appellants, it seems that the respondent herein filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC praying for decree of recovery of possession on the basis of admissions made by defendants No. 1 and 2.

( 3 ) MR. LONIAL, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the trial court erred in not appreciating that the rent of the premises was Rs. 3,217/- and was not more than Rs. 3,500/- and, therefore, it was Rent Controller who had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and learned trial court did not have any jurisdiction. In support of his submissions, Mr. Lonial contended that taking into consideration the plea taken by the appellants in the written statement as well as in the reply to the application under order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the presumption on the part of the trial court that the rent stood increased to Rs. 3,538. 70 was based on surmises and conjectures and there was no admission on the part of the appellants. It was argued before us that rent was increased to Rs. 3,217/- from August, 2000 only and not from 1. 9. 1999. It was further contended by Mr. Lonial that under Section 6-A of Delhi Rent Control Act, an increase of 10% in the rent is prospective in nature and not retrospective. It was contended before us that the notice sent by the appellants dated 4th December, 2002, therefore, was not a valid notice. Mr. Lonial also contended that as the rent was less than Rs. 3,500/- the issuance of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act Section 6-A of Delhi Rent Control Actby the respondent was illegal and no cognizance of the same could have been taken by the trial court.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Gupta, counsel appearing for the respondent, has stated that the appellants came into the tenancy premises on 1. 3. 1987 and initially the rent was Rs. 2,200/- per month. Thereafter the rent had been increased after every three years from 1. 3. 1990, thereafter on 1. 3. 1993, 1. 3. 1996, 1. 3. 1999 and 1. 3. 2002. Mr. Gupta contended that from 1. 3. 1999 the rate of rent was Rs. 3,217/- and from 1. 3. 2002 the same was Rs. 3,538/ -. It was further contended by Mr. Gupta that nowhere in the written statement plea was taken by the appellants that 10% of the increase over Rs. 3,217/- would be from August, 2002. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that apart from absence of such plea in the written statement, no such plea was taken by the appellants in support of reply filed to the application under Order 12 Rule 6 and, no such defence was taken in response to the reply to the notice issued in terms of Section 6-A read with Section 8 of the Rent Control Act. It was contended that pursuant to notice which was sent on 14th February, 2003 by the respondent no such plea was raised by the appellants. The reply of the appellants was vague and evasive.

( 5 ) WE have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. The trial court while taking into consideration the pleadings, reply to the application made under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and in view of the notice served by the respondent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, framed following three questions :- 1. Pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. 2. Determination of rent between the plaintiff and the defendants; and 3. Service of valid notice terminating the tenancy of the defendants.

( 6 ) AFTER having recorded

Click Here to Read the rest of this document