Back
High Court Of Delhi
S.KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
G.R.KATHPALIA - Respondent
Decided On : 08/14/1998
RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 14 - POSSESSION SUIT - PENDENCY OF APPLICATION FOR FIXATION OF STANDARD RENT - EFFECT - CIVIL SUIT FOR POSSESSION - MAINTAINABILITY - DAMAGES/MESNE PROFITS - DETERMINATION - JURISDICTION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tenant, challenged the maintainability of a civil suit for possession filed by the respondents, landlords, on the grounds that an application for fixation of standard rent was already pending before the Rent Controller and an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was also pending.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the pendency of an application for fixation of standard rent did not defeat a suit for possession. The court also held that the consolidated figure of rent, as per the lease deed, was Rs. 4,000 per month, including the amount for furniture and fittings, and that the appellant's argument that the actual rent was Rs. 2,500 per month was not tenable.
Issues: 1. Whether a civil suit for possession is maintainable when an application for fixation of standard rent is pending before the Rent Controller? 2. Whether the consolidated figure of rent, as per the lease deed, includes the amount for furniture and fittings? 3. Whether the court can fix damages/mesne profits beyond the amount claimed in the plaint?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the pendency of an application for fixation of standard rent does not defeat a suit for possession, as the two proceedings can continue simultaneously. 2. The court held that the consolidated figure of rent, as per the lease deed, includes the amount for furniture and fittings, as the lease deed clearly states that the rent is for both the premises and the furniture and fittings provided therein. 3. The court held that the court can fix damages/mesne profits beyond the amount claimed in the plaint, as the plaintiff had prayed for an inquiry under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, to determine the mesne profits/damages and had undertaken to pay the requisite Court fee on such a decree.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, subject to the modification that the damages/mesne profits were fixed at Rs. 25,000 per month from the date of institution of the suit till the delivery of possession of the premises.
Based on the provided legal document, the assessment of rent does not necessarily depend solely on the existence of a deed or agreement. In the case discussed, the court considered the terms of the registered lease deed, which specified the consolidated rent amount, including furniture and fittings. The court emphasized that the rent as per the lease deed was Rs. 4,000 per month, and this figure was binding, regardless of the tenant’s claim that the actual rent was lower.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that in such matters, the consolidated figure of rent stated in the lease deed is relevant and should be taken into account. The argument that rent was only Rs. 2,500 per month was rejected because the lease deed explicitly mentioned the higher consolidated rent, including furniture and fittings.
Therefore, in the absence of a deed or agreement, rent assessment may involve other evidence such as rent receipts, payment records, or customary practice in the locality. However, the court primarily relies on formal agreements or documented terms to determine the rent amount. If no such agreement exists, the court may need to consider other credible evidence to assess the rent.
In summary, while a deed or agreement provides clear evidence of rent, their absence does not make rent assessment impossible. The court can determine rent based on other credible evidence, but formal agreements generally carry significant weight in such determinations.
( 1 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only point urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing was that a petition for fixation of standard rent of the premises was already pending before the Rent Controller and the landlords/respondents could not pursue the remedy by way of a suit for possession simultaneously. It is also submitted that an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is also pending. The learned Addl. District Judge has noticed an order passed by this Court in a Civil Revision filed by the appellant against the order dismissing the application of the appellant under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. That order makes it clear that the two parallel proceedings can in law continue simultaneously and this could not be a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. A Division Bench judgment of this Court has been relied upon in the said order. The said judgment is a decision dated 10th May, 1996 in RFA No. 94/1996 entitled M/s. New United Automobiles v. Cycle Equipments Private Ltd. , 19971 RCR 69. We would like to add that mere pendency of an application for fixation of standard rent cannot defeat a suit for possession. The present tenancy was admittedly created vide a registered lease deed dated 29th April, 1980. As per the lease deed agreed rent of the premises is Rs. 4,000. 00 per month. Para I of the terms and conditions of the lease runs as under:
"1. That the lessee shall pay to the lessor for the premises the lease amount of Rs. 4,000. 00 (Rupees four thousand only) composing of Rs. 2,500. 00 for the premises and Rs. l,500. 00 for fittings, furniture and fixtures provided therein viz. cupboards, fans, geysers, pelmets, light fittings, chandliers, hand pump, booster pump, marble bath tubs, etc. in advance on or before 8th of each English calender month. "
( 2 ) THUS we find no merit in the submission made on behalf of the appellant.
( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as a matter of fact the rent for the suit premises was Rs. 2,500. 00 per month and the balance amount of Rs. 1,500. 00 per month was to be paid on account of use of furniture and fittings provided in the premises. Since no furniture and fittings were actually provided, the appellant according to the Counsel for the appellant was delivered possession of the first floor of the premises in lieu thereof. We are unable to accept this. The argument appears to be preposterous. Firstly, a list of the furniture and fittings provided in the premises is annexed to the lease deed itself. This forms part of the registered lease deed. In view of this, it cannot be said that furniture and fittings were not provided to the tenant. Secondly, the above quoted para of the lease deed shows that the rent of the premises was the consolidated figure of Rs. 4,000. 00 per month. Here we would also like to note that now the law is settled that in such matters, we have to take into consideration the consolidated figure of rent. Therefore, there is no merit or substance in the argument that the rent was actually Rs. 2,500. 00 per month and, therefore, a civil suit was not maintainable.
( 4 ) LASTLY, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge cannot be sustained in so far as it has fixed damages @ Rs. 50,000. 00 per month.- It is submitted that in the plaint the plaintiff had claimed damages @ Rs. 10,000. 00 per month and, therefore, the Trial Court could not go beyond the said figure while fixing the amount of damages/ mesne profits. It is true that in the plaint the plaintiff claimed damages @ Rs. 10,000. 00 per month upto the date of filing of the suit. However, it is to be noted that the plaintiff has further prayed that till such time that the possession of the suit premises is delivered to the plaintiff, the Court may hold an inquiry under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil Procedure C
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
