JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/landlord has challenged the legality of order dated 20.7.2007 passed by the learned ARC in the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 14-C read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

.2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner/landlord/owner of flat no. 118 Civil Supplies Co operative Group Housing Society Plot No. 6, Sector -4, Dwarka, New Delhi inducted respondent as a tenant by a lease agreement dated 6.1.2001 for a period of 11 months at the monthly rent of Rs.3700/-. The petitioner at that time was employee of CPWD, Government of India and was working as an Assistant Engineer. He retired from the service on 31.1.2006. His family consisted of his wife, two sons and two daughters. While in the service, he was occupying the government accommodation and after his retirement he continued to occupy the government flat for some time. However, an eviction order was passed against him under Public Premises Act and he was also charged with penalties for overstaying. Before

.his retirement, he filed a Civil Suit no. 136/2004 for possession and recovery of rent from the respondent. In the WS filed before the Civil Court in the Civil Suit, the respondent took following objections: The suit was not maintainable since the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. and in respect of rent respondent made following averments/pleadings in para 04 of the WS. That the contents of para 4 of the plaint, so far as those relate to the rent for the tenancy portion, are incorrect and are hereby denied. It is submitted that the tenancy Agreement dated 6.1.2001 expired due to efflux of time after 11 months of its coming into existence, and thereafter a fresh, oral tenancy agreement took place between the plaintiff and the defendant in relation to the suit premises under which the defendant agreed to remain a tenant of the plaintiff on the monthly rent of Rs.3100/- (Rs. Three Thousand One Hundred only) per month. The rent of the suit premises was reduced to Rs.3100/- by oral agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, as it was the rent prevalent for similar premises at Dwarka at the material time. The plaintiff and the defendant also agreed that the sum of Rs.7400/- advanced to the plaintiff by the defendant under the previous agreement dated 6.1.2001 be retained and treated by the plaintiff as a security deposit. The contention of the plaintiff that the tenancy period had been extended for three times for three months period due to the request made by the defendant is incorrect and are hereby denied. The plaintiff has not been able to give any details of the three alleged extensions of the tenancy, as no such extensions of tenancy as alleged ever took place.

.3. The petitioner had also made an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree but the said application did not find favour with the Civil Judge because of the respondent?s stand that the rent was Rs.3100/-p.m.. The petitioner then filed a revision petition being CRP No. 190/2006 in this Court. While disposing of this petition on 28.9.2006, this Court also observed that the allegation of respondent was that the rate of rent was subsequently reduced to Rs.3100/- per month by way of an oral tenancy. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC before the Civil Judge for withdrawing the Civil Suit with liberty to file a fresh petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act. This application was allowed by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 16.12.2006 and the petitioner was given liberty to file a petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act. During pendency of the Civil Suit before the Civil Judge, the respondent had been paying rent at the rate of Rs..3100/-, which was his contention about the rent. After withdrawal of the suit from the Civil Court, the petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document