PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Parties in RFA No.576/2007 were granted liberty to file written submissions within a week when arguments were concluded. More than a week has gone by. No written submissions have been filed.

2. The plaintiffs of the two suits, out of which the present appeals have arisen, are the landlords and have suffered a rejection of the plaint as the finding returned by the learned Trial Judge is that even as per the case pleaded in the plaint Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the claim for ejectment of the tenant of the respective suits.

3. The tenant of RFA No.576/2007 is enjoying the tenanted premises since 1.11.1972 and is paying a rent of Rs.1,285/- per month.

4. The tenant of the subject premises relatable to RFA No.11- 13/2006 is occupying the tenanted premises since around the year 1932 and is paying a monthly rent of Rs.89.60.

5. The two landlords tried their luck by seeking ejectment of the respective tenant alleging that a Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 95 (2002) DLT 508 Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran (HUF) vs. Union of India, had quashed Sections 4,6 and 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 being offensive to Article 14, 19(1)g and 21 of the Constitution of India and that as a consequence the landlords became entitled to receive rent at the market rate and since market rate of rent when suits were filed was above Rs.3,500/- per month, the tenants were liable to be ejected by the civil courts because the tenancies were determined by issuing requisite notice under the Transfer of Property Act calling upon the tenants to surrender possession.

6. In Delhi, a tenant paying rent of less than Rs.3,500/- per month is protected by the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 and can be ejected only by the Rent Controller on one or more of the grounds enumerated under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. It may be noted that prior to the amendment incorporated in the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 by Act No.37 of 1988 with effect from 1.12.1988 all tenancies in Delhi, irrespective of the rent payable, were covered by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. By Act No.37 of 1988 clause c was inserted in Section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, the effect whereof is to exclude premises whose monthly rent exceeded Rs.3,500/-per month from the rigors of the Act.

7. It may be noted at the outset that the vires of Act No.37/1988 and of clause c of Section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 was upheld by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 1995 (1) SCC 104 D.C.Bhatia and Ors. Vs. UOI and Ors.

8. The appellants suffered rejection of their plaints because the admitted agreed rent of the two premises, as noted herein above was far below Rs.3,500/- per month and thus the bar created by Section 14 of the said Act to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been held fatal to the suits.

9. The only contention urged at the hearing of the appeals by learned counsel for the appellants was that since Section 4, 6 and 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 have been struck down by this Court in Raghunandan Sarans case (supra), there was no embargo on the landlords to recover the standard rent as determined by said provisions and hence the rates at which rent could be realized by them as on date when the suits were filed would determine the question whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction and since it was pleaded in the plaints that the market rate of rent was much more than Rs.3,500/- per month, the plaints could not be rejected at the thresh-hold.

10. Unfortunately for the appellants, the contention afore-noted by their counsel holds no substance, though it is a very emotive plea.

11. The Division Bench of this Court in Raghunandan Sarans case (supra) has very pithly summed up the ambit of Section 4, Section 6 and Section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 and since the vires of these Sections has been tested and held to be offending Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21

Click Here to Read the rest of this document