Consistency in legal arguments is crucial; a tenant cannot change positions contrary to previous admissions in ongoing litigation regarding eviction rights under local law.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present second appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment dated 17th March, 2020, passed by the by the ld. ADJ-1, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter, "First Appellate Court") in RCA DJ No. 31/2019. Vide the said order, the appeal against the decree dated 23rd January, 2019 passed by the ld. ASCJ, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter, "Trial Court"), in Suit No. 340/2018, has been dismissed.

3. The Trial Court on 23rd January, 2019 decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff/landlord/Respondent (hereinafter, "landlord") under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, and had directed possession to be handed over to the landlord. The operative portion of the order of the Trial Court reads as under:

"Arguments considered.

As per para 3 of reply of the defendant, he is willing to pay the rent but the plaintiff is not receiving the rent. In reply to legal notice dated 14.06.2018 it is admitted that the defendant paid rent @ Rs.700/- to be plaintiff in good faith. In his reply to legal notice dated 30.11.2009 the defendant has also admitted his tenancy.

The plaintiff on the other has filed several rent receipts to show Dharambir as the tenant and the payment made towards rent. Perusal of record shows that the previous case under Rent Control Act was dismissed on 24.10.2017 withdrawn as the suit was not maintainable, property being commercial in nature.

Firstly, the defendant has himself admitted that the tenancy was determined by way of notice dated 28.04.2003 by the plaintiff whereby he/defendant was required to handover vacant and peaceful possession. Secondly, the admission of the defendant that he is a tenant and paid Rs.700/- monthly rent to the plaintiff is then categorical. The only dispute left to be sorted is whether the claim of the plaintiff to seek damages @ Rs.30,000/- per month from defendant is justified/rightful.

The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed in his favour. The defendant is directed to handover the possession of the suit property i.e. Shop measuring 101/2 X 22 bearing No.S-33/7, Braham Puri Main Road, Gali No. 24, Delhi-110053 to the plaintiff.

List on 07.03.2019 for admission denial of documents and framing of issues."

4. The First Appellate Court has also upheld these findings of the Trial Court and has held that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, "the DRC Act"), would not apply to the area in question.

5. The brief background is that the landlord had rented out the property bearing Shop No. S-33/7, Brahampuri Main Road, Gali No. 24, Delhi- 110053, to the Defendant/tenant/Appellant (hereinafter, "tenant"). After his retirement from service, the landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 1 4(C) of the DRC Act claiming bonafide need, however the same was dismissed by the ARC. Thereafter, upon termination of the tenancy, the landlord had approached the Rent Controller under Section 1 4(1)(e) of the DRC Act seeking possession of the premises. In the said petition before the Rent Controller, the tenant had taken a stand that the petition under the DRC Act is not maintainable as the Village Ghonda Chauhan Bangar, also known as Brahampuri, Main Road, Delhi was not notified as covered under the DRC Act. The said plea taken in the affidavit of the tenant reads as under:

"That instant eviction petition under Delhi