The Rent Control Act applies automatically to areas within municipal limits at the time of the act's commencement; a separate notification is only required for areas urbanized subsequently. A party is also barred from adopting contradictory legal stances regarding jurisdiction after having previously invoked the act.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Rent Control Act - Sections 1(2) and 50 - Applicability of rent control laws to urban areas - Jurisdiction of civil courts - Whether separate notification required for areas urbanized prior to enactment - Area included in municipal limits prior to the legislation is covered by the Act by virtue of inclusion in the first schedule - A subsequent specific notification is only required if an area is included or excluded after the notification of the principal legislation. (Paras 30, 31, 32, 33, 40)

(B) Practice and Procedure - Forum shopping - Prohibition against approbate and reprobate - Party having previously invoked jurisdiction of rent control authorities cannot subsequently plead exclusion of such jurisdiction for the same subject matter to pursue civil remedies. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 39)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a suit for possession, damages, mesne profits, and permanent injunction. The lower courts dismissed the suit on the ground that the dispute was barred under the relevant rent control legislation, as the property fell within the ambit of the act. The appellant challenged these findings, contending that the area was not specifically notified under the legislation and that mere urbanization did not trigger the applicability of the rent control laws.

Findings of Court:
The court held that where a property is situated in an area that was part of the municipal limits at the time of the enactment of the rent control legislation, such area is deemed covered under the First Schedule of the act. Consequently, no separate notification is required to extend the act to such premises. The appellant’s previous conduct of pursuing eviction proceedings under the same rent control legislation estopped them from arguing that the act was inapplicable.

Issues: (i) Whether the rent control legislation is applicable to the premises in question. (ii) Whether a separate notification is required to extend the legislation to areas urbanized prior to the commencement of the act. (iii) Whether the bar on civil suits under the act applies to the property.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that areas falling within municipal limits at the inception of the rent control act are automatically governed by it. Separate notifications under the proviso to the act are only necessary for areas included or excluded subsequent to the act's commencement. Furthermore, a litigant cannot adopt inconsistent positions by previously invoking the act and later challenging its applicability to the same premises.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of suit property, tenancy, and history of litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments regarding maintainability and section 50 of the drc act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. trial court's initial finding on the applicability of drc act. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. appellant's grounds challenging the urbanization-related legal findings. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. respondent's defense regarding maintainability of the second appeal. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
6. no secondary notification is needed if the area was within mcd limits before the drc act commenced. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
7. estoppel prevents parties from adopting contradictory legal positions regarding jurisdiction. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been filed against the judgment dated 28.03.2024 whereby the learned ADJ has upheld the judgment dated 06.06.2023 of learned Civil Judge who had dismissed the Suit for Possession, Damages, Mesne Profits and Permanent Injunction on the ground as being not maintainable, because of the bar under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the “DRC Act”).

2. The plaintiff/Appellant Sh. Rajender Kumar Sharma had filed a Suit bearing CS No.1068/2022 for Possession, Damages, Mesne Profits and Permanent Injunction.

3. Facts in brief, as stated in the plaint, are that Plaintiff/Appellant is the owner/landlord of property bearing No. 2617, Gali No. 4, Mahavir Block, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Property”) by virtue of Relinquishment Deed dated 25.06.2011 executed by other family members, in his favour in respect of the Suit Property. Even otherwise, the Suit for possession has been filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Karkardooma, wherein the Defendant had admitted that the Plaintiff was the owner/landlord of the Suit Property.

4. The Defendant further admitted himself to be a tenant under the Plaintiff, on the ground floor of the Suit Property. He even deposited rent under Section 27 DRC Act in the Court of learned Rent Controller wherein again, he admitted the Plaintiff to be landlord/owner of the Suit Property. The relationship of landlord-tenant is therefore, admitted between the parties.

5. The Plaintiff further asserted that Defendant had been inducted as a tenant by the Plaintiff in respect of one shop on the ground floor of the Suit Property admeasuring 16 ft x 10 ft approximately at a monthly rent of Rs.1300/- p.m., which the Defendant had been depositing in the bank account of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserted that property in question exists in the Colony known as Mahavir Block, Pandav Road, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, Gali No. 4, on the land of village Chandrawali, Shahdara, Delhi, which is also known as Mahavir Block, Pandav Gali, Shahdara, Delhi. This village has not been urbanized under Section 507 of the Municipal Corporation Act and therefore, the provisions of DRC Act are not applicable to the tenanted premises. Furthermore, the premises not being urbanized, were not included in Schedule 2(1) of DRC Act. Therefore, DRC Act is not applicable to the Suit Shop.

6. The tenancy of the Defendant was terminated under 106 Transfer of Property Act by the Plaintiff through Legal Notice dated 25.07.2022, wherein the Defendant was asked to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the Suit Shop to the Plaintiff. Despite Notice, he failed to vacate the premises and thus, the Suit for Possession and Permanent Injunction was filed by the Plaintiff.

7. The Suit was contested by the Defendant/Respondent who had taken a preliminary objection that the Suit being barred under Section 50 DRC Act, as the admitted rate of rent was Rs.1300/- per month.

8. It was stated that earlier, Plaintiff had filed a Suit C.S. No. 389/2012, (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document