RAJ KUMAR RAJORA AND ORS. Vs. AJAY DHINGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition impugns order dated 1st February, 2018 by which the application under OrderXV-ACPC was decided by the Trial Court which has directed payment of only the admitted rent of Rs. 98/- per month to the Plaintiff. The operative portion of the order of the ld. Trial Court reads as under:

(2.) The brief background of the present petition is that a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent/damages/mesne profits was filed by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs (hereinafter 'owners') against the Defendants/Respondents (hereinafter 'tenants'). The tenanted premises comprises of Municipal No. 7010, Plot No. 8 and Municipal No. 7011, Plot No. 10, Block No. 14-B, at Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 measuring 174.6 sq. yards (hereinafter 'tenanted premises') of which the Plaintiffs are admittedly the owners. The case of the owners is that the tenanted premises was originally given out on rent to one Mr. JagdishChander several years ago. On 2nd August, 2005 a notice was issued on behalf of the owners for terminating the tenancy. Despite the said notice having been served, the tenants did not vacate the property. In the meantime, Mr. Jagdish Chander passed away in October, 2005 and is survived by his two sons who are in occupation of the property. The present suit was filed in 2016 against the said two sons of Mr. Jagdish Chander who were impleaded as Defendants in the suit. The admitted rent which was being paid by Mr. Jagdish Chander was Rs. 98/- per month. The tenants entered appearance and took the stand that the notice of termination is a fabricated document. Further, one of the objections of the tenants is that they are not unauthorised occupants and the suit is not maintainable as the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 would apply, in view of the rent being, only Rs. 98/- per month. The suit is pending adjudication and evidence is currently being recorded in the suit.

(3.) In the meantime, an application under OrderXV-ACPC was filed by the owners seeking deposit of the market rent on the basis of the prevalent rates being paid in the area. It is the case of the owners that the tenants are unauthorised occupants in view of the provisions of Explanation II of Section2(l)of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and further that no rent was paid between 2005 till 2016 by the Legal Heirs of the deceased and this itself proves that the tenants were well aware that they were unauthorised occupants. The claim of the owners was for Rs. 2 lakhs per month as damages per month from 22nd January, 2016 i.e., the date of filing of the suit.