LEENA JOSEPH Vs. FAZIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 20th January, 2009 of the trial Court whereby trial Court dismissed an application under Section 151 CPC made by the petitioner directing defendant no.1 (respondent no.1 herein) to pay arrears of rent/mesne profits of the premises at Rs.4000/- p.m. w.e.f. 12th March, 2007 till date and directing respondent to pay pending electricity charges to the electricity department.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for disposing of this petition are that the petitioner/landlord filed a suit for possession of a two-room set on third floor left side portion of property No. XVII/2253/D-1 Guru Nanak Nagar, Mandirwali Gali Shadipur, New Delhi after termination of tenancy of respondent by a legal notice. In the suit it was stated that respondent Mhd. Fazil was a tenant at monthly rate of Rs.4,000/- p.m. Tenancy of 11 months was created by the previous owner by virtue of a written rent agreement dated 27th April, 2006 for a period starting from 30th April, 2006 for 11 months for residential purpose. Defendant No.1 in the WS alleged that tenancy was not created in his favour but it was created by the previous owner in favour of his mother and the rent of the premises was only Rs.400/- and not Rs.4,000/-. No written agreement was executed, the rent agreement relied upon by the petitioner was a forged document. It was stated that defendant no.1 was a minor at that time he could not have entered into rent agreement. He also stated that Shakeela Begum, his mother was a proper party and she was not made a party. The other stand taken by him was that at the time of creation of tenancy, a security of Rs.1 lac was given to defendant no.2, the previous owner, and this amount was not returned by defendant no.2. Regarding electricity, it was stated that electricity bills were being paid directly to the electricity department by mother of defendant no.1 and she had recently paid Rs.6,000/- to the electricity department. It was stated that notice of termination of tenancy issued by the plaintiff was not a valid notice as the premises was covered by Delhi Rent Control Act and suit be barred.

(3.) The trial Court observed that since the defendant was not admitting rent @ Rs.4,000/- p.m. and a defence had been taken that there was no rent agreement between petitioner and defendant no.1 thus there was no admission on the part of defendant no.1 about rate of rent and therefore no order could be passed under Section 151 CPC. The trial Court also observed that trial Court had no power under Section 151 CPC to pass such an order.