Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 781
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JAYANT NATH, J.
NEELAM BHALLA – Petitioner
Versus
JAGDISH KUMAR - Respondent
RC.REV. 115 of 2017
Decided On : 07-03-2017
For the Petitioner: Dr. Anurag Kumar Agarwal and Mr. Umesh Mishra
The court emphasized the self-contained nature of Section 25B of the DRC Act and clarified the requirements for premises under the Act, highlighting the ARC's obligation to follow the specified procedure.
Headnote:
DRC Act - Eviction Petition - Section 14(1)(e), Section 25B - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25 B of the DRC Act regarding municipal premises. The eviction petition was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) on the ground of lack of municipal identity of the premises and non-compliance with municipal laws.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ARC's dismissal of the eviction petition without even issuing notice to the respondent was unjust. It also noted that the ARC's focus on compliance with municipal laws was misplaced, as it was not the duty of the Rent Controller to enforce municipal laws while adjudicating an eviction petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the identification of the premises, compliance with municipal laws, and the ARC's jurisdiction to enforce municipal laws in an eviction petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the premises for the purpose of the DRC Act does not necessarily require separate municipal numbers for part of the premises prior to letting the same out. It also highlighted that Section 25B of the DRC Act is a self-contained code, and the ARC is obliged to follow the procedure stated in Section 25 B of the Act when dealing with an application under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded back to the ARC for afresh consideration from the stage at which the matter was pending.
JAYANT NATH, J.
CM No. 9281/2017
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
RC.REV. 115/2017
1. The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) to impugn the order dated 11.01.2017 by which order the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred as the ARC) dismissed the eviction petition on the ground that there is no municipal identity of the premises and that the petitioner is in defiance of the Municipal Laws. It however permitted the petitioner to again approach the court after due compliance of the Municipal Laws.
2. The petitioner filed the present eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25 B of the DRC Act regarding municipal premises No. 16-A/1, New Krishna Nagar, New Delhi-110051. It is urged that the property was purchased vide a sale deed dated 24.01.2006 which is duly registered. There are four shops on the ground floor. It is also urged that the petitioner has been paying property tax in respect of the said property from time to time. The respondent/tenant was in possession of one shop out of the four shops and is said to be running a business of property dealing in the name and style of J.K. Properties. The shop, it is stated, is required bona fide by the petitioner for his requirements and hence, the eviction petition was filed.
3. The eviction petition came up for hearing on 09.02.2015 when notice was issued to the respondent returnable for 15.07.2015. Prior to the next date, the petitioner is said to have inspected the file and came to know that the summons sent through registered post and Process Server remained unserved and were returned to the court. The Process Server had visited the tenanted premises and found the shop shut. He has also mentioned that whenever he visited the said shop for service of summons, he found the door of the shop closed. He has also noted that when he reached the other address of the respondent where he resides, the daughter of the respondent said that the father was not at home. Hence, on 14.08.2015 the petitioner moved an application for substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC praying for service of summons by way of affixation. The said simple application for substituted service was kept pending for a long period. On 10.11.2016 after a lapse of considerable time, the petitioner moved a transfer petition for transfer of the petition. On 14.12.2016, the District Judge directed the ARC to dispose of the said application for substituted service within one month. Thereafter, the present impugned order has been passed.
4. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the ARC concluded that the premises must be identified by a municipal number. It also noted that a shop’s valuation for the purpose of taxation shall be different from that of the property used for residence and also for purpose of prevention of nuisance. It also noted that the approved lay out and drawing/structure must be within the knowledge of the Corporation. It also noted that the premises in the present case is different from the building in which it is situated in nature, structure and usage. Its identity cannot be identified by a sign board alone. It also noted that the property owners in municipal areas are not at liberty to convert/construct properties without intimation and consent of the Government/Municipal Corporation. It concluded that the petitioner is bound to produce the municipal identity of the premises. The petitioner is bound to inform the municipal corporation regarding the existence and nature of the premises and seek approval of its existence. As no municipal identity of the premises which would distinctly and comprehensively establish the identity of the premises was found to exist, the ARC dismissed the eviction petition at the threshold.
5. I may note that the eviction petition has been dismissed without even issuance of the notice to the respond
