JUDGMENT

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.:

Table of contents Preface………………………………………………………………...2 Brief Facts…………………………………………………………….2 Contentions of the Respondents/landlords……………………………7 Contentions of the Petitioner/tenants…………………………………10 Analysis and Findings………………………………………………...13 Affixation…………………….……………………………………….25 CM APPL. 18843/2023 [Application seeking payment of use and occupation charges]

Preface:

1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Respondents/landlords seeking directions to the Petitioner/tenants to pay the use and occupation charges for the premises bearing Shop no.9A admeasuring about 11 feet X 44 feet or 484 sq. ft. at Plot No.9. Block No. 171, Sunder Nagar Market, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “demised Premises”].

Brief Facts:

2. It is necessary in the first instance to set out briefly few facts that are relevant for the purposes of adjudication of this Application.

2.1 The Respondents/landlords filed a Petition for eviction of the demised Premises against Sh. Narendra Kumar Jain [hereinafter referred to as the “original tenant”] on 25.04.2012 [hereinafter referred to as “Eviction Petition”] before the Court of the learned ACJ-cum-Civil Judge-cum-ARC (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “learned ARC”]. It was the case of the Respondents/landlords that the demised Premises were let out on 09.08.1987 at a monthly rental of Rs. 973.62/- for non- residential purposes to the original tenant. The said Eviction Petition was contested by the original tenant and a complete trial in the matter took place where the original tenant and the Respondent/landlord also appeared in the witness box as a witness.

2.2 During the pendency of the Eviction Petition, an Application, under Order I Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] read with Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC as well as Rule 23 of the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959, was filed by the Respondents/landlords seeking to implead the nephew of Sh. Narendra Kumar Jain, one Sh. Arjun Jain, the proprietor of M/s Padma Gems, as a party in the Eviction Petition. In the said Application, it was contended by the Respondents/landlords that the said Sh. Arjun Jain is an unlawful sub-tenant in the demised Premises. Notice in this Application was issued to said Sh. Arjun Jain as well as the original tenant.

2.3 Both, the original tenant as well as Sh. Arjun Jain appeared in response to this Application through their counsel, although no replies were filed. The application was heard by the learned ARC and by an order dated 22.12.2014 it held that the said Sh. Arjun Jain is not a necessary party to the present Petition and his title, if any, will have to be decided by a Civil Court in view of Section 50(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19581 [hereinafter referred to as “the DRC Act”]. Relying on Section 25 of the DRC Act, it was held by the learned ARC that since the sub-tenant did not have an independent title/claim in the property, the original tenant alone is

1. 50. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts barred in respect of certain matters-

….. 4) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as preventing a civil court from entertaining any suit or proceeding for the decision of any question of title to any premises to which this Act applies or any question as to the person or persons who are entitled to receive the rent of such premises.

the necessary party to the proceedings.

2.4 The relevant extract of order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the learned ARC is reproduced below:

“11. Distinguished from a lawful sub-tenant having a direct legal interest in the property are other persons who are either not lawful sub-tenants or whose possession is not protected by the Act. These persons may be of two kinds namely (a) those claiming through the tenant, and (b) those having an independent title of their own. The former claim through the tenant and are not protected by the Act. They are not, therefore necessary parties. They are represented b