The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 8 of the Rent Act regarding the requirement for a valid notice of increase in rent, and the effect of such notice on the applicability of the Rent Act to the tenancy.

B. N. CHATURVEDI, J.

( 1 ) 1. Admit.

( 2 ) FOLLOWING substantial question of law is formulated for decision of the appeal: whether documents Ex. PW-1/3 and/or Ex. PW-1/5 answer the description of a notice contemplated under Section 8 of the Rent Act, to effect increase in rent?

( 3 ) THE appellant, M/s. Crack Detectives Private Limited, is in appeal against an order dated 4. 4. 2005 of learned Additional District Judge setting aside the judgment/order dated 13. 8. 2003 passed by the Court of learned Civil judge, and remanding the case with a direction to decide the suit on merits.

( 4 ) THE respondent filed a suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits in respect of property No. 17,18/23/b-2 Market, Safdarjung enclave, New Delhi, against the appellant.

( 5 ) THE appellant was a tenant under the respondent on the first floor of the aforesaid premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/-, excluding electricity and water charges since 1st of April, 1988. According to the respondent, he had an agreement with the appellant that the rent of the premises would be enhanced by 20% with effect from 1st of April, 1991. Besides, it was also agreed upon that there would be an increase in rent by another Rs. 500/-per month on account of replacement of cement sheet roof in a portion of tenanted premises at the cost of respondent. The respondent claims to have served a notice on the appellant expressing his intention to enhance the rent and asking the respondent to pay the rent @ Rs. 4,700/- per month with effect from 1st of April, 1991. The appellant, however, disputed that there was any agreement for enhancement of rent by 20% or for increase @ Rs. 500/- per month on account of replacement of cement sheet roof. Pleading that there could be no enhancement beyond rs. 3,500/- per month, the appellant disowned its liability to pay the rent at enhanced rate of Rs. 4,700/- per month. The respondent served the appellant with a notice dated 11. 9. 1992 calling upon them to pay the rent @ Rs. 4,700/- per month with effect from 1st of April, 1991and also terminating their tenancy with effect from 30th of September, 1992, and requiring them to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to him by 30th of September, 1992.

( 6 ) ON the pleadings of parties, in all, eight Issues were framed but the learned Civil Judge returned his findings on Issues 3 and 3. (a) only, which read to the following effect:"3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of eviction or not? OPP. 3. (a) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 50 of DRC Act? OPD. "

( 7 ) ON examination of evidence on record, the learned Civil Judge returned a finding against the respondent holding that there was no increase in rent and the same remained at Rs. 3,500/-per month only. He, accordingly, held that since monthly rent of the property did not exceed Rs. 3,500/- per month, the tenancy continued to be governed by the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, ?the Rent Act?) and, consequently, by virtue of Section 50 of the said act, the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain the suit for recovery of possession stood ousted. The learned Civil Judge, thus, decided both the issues against the respondent and dismissed the suit as being barred by Section 50 of the Rent Act.

( 8 ) THE respondent went in appeal against the dismissal of the suit whereupon the learned Additional District Judge reversed the finding of the learned Civil Judge to the effect that the suit was barred by Section 50 of the delhi Rent Control Act. The first appellate court, on examination of evidence on record, returned a finding that there was an increase in the rent of the premises in view of a notice of his intention to increase the rent having been served on the appellant. She held that with the increase in the rent beyond the limit of Rs. 3,500/- per month, the tenancy was no longer to be governed by the provisions of the Rent Act.

( 9 ) I have hear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document