1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Rent Control and Slum Clearance

ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD. V. P.S. JAIN CO. LTD., 57 (1995) DLT 131

ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD. V. P.S. JAIN CO. LTD., 57 (1995) DLT 131

FACTS

The plaintiff filed suit for eviction of the defendant - tenant impleading the sub-tenants also invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court on the ground that the premises are fetching monthly rent exceeding Rs. 3,500 p.m. and so the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 are excluded.

Section 3 of the Act in so far as relevant for the purpose of this suit is as under:

  1. Act not to apply to certain premises – Nothing in this Act shall apply. (c) to any premises, whether residential or not whose monthly rent exceeds Rs.3,500/-.

The tenant has sub-let the premises exercising the right to sub-let conferred by the terms of tenancy. The monthly rent realised by the tenant from the sub-tenants in respect of the very same premises exceeds Rs.3,500/-.

It is clear that if it is held that the premises in the suit are one whose monthly rent exceeds Rs.3,500/- the suit for ejectment would lie before a Civil Court without attracting protection against eviction under Section 14 of the Act. If not, then the suit shall have to be throughout as not maintainable; the suit being entertainable only by a Controller and that too on the availability of one or more of the grounds for recovery of possession contemplated by Section 14 of the Act. Section 50 excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Court to try any suit which under the Act the Controller is empowered to decide.

ISSUE

  • Whether the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 will apply to the case?
  • Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit in view of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act?

JUDGEMENT

The court observed that,

In the case at hand the tenant having obtained the premises at a monthly rent not exceeding Rs.3,500/- did enjoy the protection of the Act. The protection is capable of being foregone in both the ways: the tenant may himself agree to enhance the rent so as to exceed Rs.3,500/- per month or he may sub-let the premises at monthly rent exceeding Rs.3,500/-. In either case the rent of the premises would exceed Rs.3,500/- per month and that would attract the applicability of Section 3 (c). Though the premises are in fact earning monthly rent exceeding Rs.3,500/- yet Section 3 (c) would not apply.

In so far as the meaning of the term rent is concerned, there is no distinction between the rent paid by a tenant to a landlord and the rent paid by a sub-tenant to a tenant.

As the suit premises are earning rent more than Rs.3,500/- a month, the applicability of Section 3 (c) of the Act is attracted. The suit is held to be maintainable before Civil Court.