$~3

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 99/2023 & CM APPL. 3344/2023

KAMLESH KUMAR SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Bhanu Sanoriya and Mr. Manu

Padalia, Advocates

versus

SAVITA YADAV

..... Respondent

Through:

None.

%

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):

1.

This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

impugns the judgment dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal,

North, Rohini Courts, Delhi (‘RCT’) in RCT Appeal No. 01/2022, titled as

‘Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Singh v. Smt. Savita Yadav’, whereby the RCT dismissed

the appeal filed by the Petitioner and upheld the eviction order dated

04.12.2021 passed by the Rent Controller, North District, Rohini Courts,

Delhi (‘Rent Controller’) in eviction petition no. 28/2016.

2.

Brief facts leading to filing of present petition are as under:

2.1

The Respondent herein filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a)

and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1968, against the Petitioner claiming

herself to be the landlady with respect to two rooms and one shop in House

Digitally Signed

By:RASHMI DABAS

Signing Date:09.08.2023

15:21:57

Signature Not Verified

No. 25, Gali No. 1, comprised in Khasra No. 15 (Min), Ambedkar Nagar

Extn., Haider Pur, Delhi –11008 (‘tenanted premises’).

2.2

The Petitioner herein filed his written statement to the eviction petition,

inter alia, raising a preliminary objection that there doesn’t exist a landlord

and tenant relationship between the parties. The Petitioner stated that the

Respondent has failed to file any rent agreement, rent receipts executed

between them or any other document which can prove the tenancy of the

Petitioner.

2.3

The Rent Controller after considering the matter vide order and

judgment dated 04.12.2021 allowed the eviction petition filed by the

Respondent herein and directed the petitioner herein to either deposit in Court

or to pay to the Respondent, the arrears of rent with effect from March 2010

till date at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month along with statutory interest

@15% per annum thereupon within one month from the date of order.

2.4

The Petitioner herein being aggrieved filed an appeal before the RCT

assailing the order and judgment dated 04.12.2021, which as well was

dismissed by the RCT upholding the decision passed by the Rent Controller.

3.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Courts below fell

in error in not appreciating that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant

between the parties. He states that thus, the only remedy that was available to

the Respondent was to file a civil suit for recovery of possession of the

property bearing House No.25, Gali No. 1, comprised in Khasra no. 15 (Min),

Ambedkar Nagar Extn., Haider Pur, Delhi-110088 (‘subject property’).

3.1

He states that there is no written rent agreement between the parties and

during the course of evidence no rent receipt was also placed on record. In

support of the said contention, he relies upon the testimony of the Petitioner,

Digitally Signed

By:RASHMI DABAS

Signing Date:09.08.2023

15:21:57

Signature Not Verified

who was cross-examined as RW-1 and Ms. Shimla Devi, wife of the

Petitioner, who was examined as RW-2.

3.2

He states that the Rent Controller and the RCT have erred in concluding

that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties by

relying upon a statement signed between the parties before the SHO, P.S.

Shalimar Bagh, which has been marked as Ex-RW-1/P1. He states that the

said statement only evidences existence of relationship of landlord and tenant,

however, the said statement as well does not prove that the rent was below

Rs. 3,500/- and therefore the Rent Controller does not have any jurisdiction

to entertain the eviction petition under the provisions of the DRC Act.

3.3

To a query from this Cou