The main legal point established in the judgment is that the DRC Act did not empower the Rent Controller to grant the prayers in the suit, making the suit maintainable before the Civil Judge.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 26th May, 2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (the learned ADJ) in CS 129/2022 whereby an application under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Sections 50 and 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the DRC Act), filed by the petitioners, as the defendants in the said suit, was dismissed by the learned ADJ. The contention of the petitioners was that, by operation of Section 9 of the CPC and Section 50 read with Section 44 of the DRC Act, the suit was maintainable only before the Rent Controller.

2. Needless to say, the merit of this submission would have to be examined on the basis of the case set out in the plaint of the respondents vis-a-vis the aforesaid statutory provisions.

The plaint

3. The respondents claimed to be tenants of a shop situated at 1, Qutub Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi (the suit property), of which Baba Barat Ali Shah was the landlord. Consequent to the demise of Baba Barat Ali Shah, Petitioner 1 claimed to have become the owner of the suit property. The ownership of Petitioner 1 was, however, disputed by the respondent in the suit.

4. These aspects, need not, however, detain this Court as they are not strictly relevant to adjudication of the controversy at hand. Suffice it to state that the plaint alleged that the petitioners were vandalising the suit property and were interfering with its peaceful occupation by the respondents. It was also alleged that the petitioners had caused considerable damage to the suit property, by way of proof whereof photographs were also filed in the plaint, and, that the petitioners were liable to repair the damage caused by them.

5. Predicated on these allegations, the suit prayed thus:

PRAYER

It is respectfully prayed this Honble Court may:-

A. A Decree of permanent injunction be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby restraining them, their relatives, employees, agents, labour or any person claiming through them, from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the tenanted shop and from causing any damage to the tenanted shop or from putting water in the shop from the roof in the tenanted premises;

B. A decree of Mandatory. injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby directing the Defendants to carry out necessary repair in the roof of the tenanted shop including the basement so that there would be no water came down at the tenanted shop

OR

in alternative the directions may be given to the Defendants to allow the Plaintiff to get repair the roof of the tenanted shop including the basement and the Defendants be directed to give the expenses which will be incurred in repairing.

Further the SHO of PS Sadar Bazar be directed to provide protection and assistance of male and female staff of police while carrying on the repair work in the tenanted shop.

C. A decree of damages for a. sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.

D. Costs of the suit be also awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.

E. Such other.and further orders, which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, be also passed.

6. The aforesaid suit is presently pending adjudication before the learned ADJ.

7. In the aforesaid suit, the petitioners, as the defendants in the suit filed an application under Section 9 of the CPC read with Sections 50 and 44 of the DRC Act, alleging that the suit was not maintainable before the learned Civil Judge, but would lie, instead, before the Rent Controller. As such, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed as not maintainable.

8. The aforesaid application, filed by the petitioners, stands dismissed by the impugned order dated 26th May, 2022, passed by the learned ADJ.

9. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction vested in this Court by way of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. As