RSA 76/2012

Page 1 of 23

$~R-205.

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 14.12.2015

%

Judgment delivered on: 23.12.2015

+

RSA 76/2012

DEEPAK NIJHAWAN AND ANR

..... Appellants

Through:

Mr. Uttam Datt and Mr. Saksham

Marwah, Advocates

versus

RN ABROL

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. S.S. Handa and Mr. Shiva

Handa, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

J U D G M E N T

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated

23.12.2012 passed by the Fist Appellate Court, namely, the learned ADJ,

Central-17, Delhi in RCA No.17/2011 preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs.

The Fist Appellate Court dismissed the said first appeal and affirmed the

judgment and decree dated 04.04.2011 passed by the Trial Court, namely,

Civil Judge, Central-5, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Suit No.472/2010. The

Trial Court had similarly dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for

possession, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and damages.

2015:DHC:10476

RSA 76/2012

Page 2 of 23

2.

The case of the plaintiffs/appellants was that they had initially let out

the suit property bearing no.1337, Ground Floor, Sector-D, Pocket-1, DDA

Flats, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi to the respondent/defendant on 18.06.1988

on an initial rent of Rs.2,500/- excluding water, electricity and other

charges. The said lease was for a period of three years w.e.f. 19.06.1988.

Consequently, the said initial lease expired on 19.06.1991. The plaintiff

claimed that the same had been extended by the parties upto 30.06.1992 on

21.03.1991. The plaintiff claimed that on that occasion, the rent was

enhanced by 10% to Rs.2750/- p.m.

3.

The plaintiff sent a notice dated 08.07.1994 to increase the rent by

resort to section 6A, read with section 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act,

1958 (DRC Act). In this notice, the plaintiff claimed that the rent had been

increased from Rs.2,500/- by 10%, w.e.f 19.06.1991. The plaintiff sought a

further increase of 10% w.e.f. 19.06.1994 thereby increasing the rent to

Rs.3025/- p.m.

4.

The plaintiff claimed that he issued a second notice claiming further

increase of rent by 10% on the pre existing rent, on 01.11.1997, thereby

increasing the rent to Rs.3,328/-. Another notice of increase of rent was

issued on 19.06.2000, thereby increasing the rent by another 10% on the

pre existing rent of Rs.3361/- p.m. The plaintiff claimed that since the rent

had gone beyond Rs.3500/-, the monthly tenancy of the defendant was

terminated vide notice dated 25.10.2001. According to the plaintiff, the

defendant did not respond to either of the aforesaid three notices. However,

the defendant sent a communication dated 10.02.1993, as per which he

agreed to increase the rent w.e.f. February 1993 by 10% to Rs.2750/- over

2015:DHC:10476

RSA 76/2012

Page 3 of 23

the pre existing rent of Rs.2500/- p.m. Thereafter, the present suit was filed

on 13.01.2005, inter alia, claiming possession/ejectment, arrears of rent and

mesne profits.

5.

The defendant upon service of summons filed the written statement.

The defendant denied any increase of rent w.e.f. 19.06.1991 as claimed by

the plaintiff. The defendant claimed that the rent had been increased by

him to Rs.2,750/- p.m. with effect from 01.02.1992. The defendant claimed

that the suit was barred under section 50 of the DRC Act as the rent was

below Rs.3500/- p.m.

6.

On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues – one

of the issues being whether the suit is barred under section 50 of the DRC

Act. The parties led their respective evidence. The plaintiff exhibited the

aforesaid three notices dated 08.07.1994, 01.11.1997 and 19.06.2000 as Ex.

PW-1/6, Ex. PW-1/8 and Ex.PW-1/11 respectively. The plaintiff also

produced the defendants letter dated 10.02.1993, as aforesaid, seeking to

enhance the rent from Rs.2750/- w.e.f. 01.0