WALI MOHD Vs. KILASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the concurrent findings of the Additional Rent Controller as well as Rent Control Tribunal under Section 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, on the question of the rate at which rent is to be deposited by the Respondent in the duration of the disposal of eviction petition. It is thus in respect of Orders which are intrinsically interlocutory in nature. An eviction petition had been filed by the landlord which was decreed ex parte. The Respondent subsequently filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code and thereafter in his application seeking leave to contest under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act stating in essence that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. Thereafter an application has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The assertion in this application is that the rent was Rs.300.00 per month. It is correct that there is no specific denial to this statement but it is incorrect that this question has not been traversed at all. It has been repeatedly observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a pedantic approach should be eschewed by the Court and that the interpretation that should be given to pleadings should be in consonance with the overall submission expressed therein. Where it is evident that there is an evasive denial, or no denial at all, the statements should be deemed to have been admitted.

(2.) The stand of the Respondent is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. A holistic reading of the replies/application discloses this position. It was mentioned that the Respondent had not been asked by the erstwhile landlord to attorn to the Petitioners, who admittedly have purchased the property from the erstwhile owner/landlord. When it has been stated by the Respondent that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant, I fail to appreciate how an admission can be extracted and elicited to the effect that the rate of rent of Rs.300.00 had not been denied. When the entire relationship has been denied, along with it the rate of rent must be held to have been refuted also. A denial of this nature attracts far reaching consequences since that party may lose the protection extended to tenants under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(3.) Both the courts below have concurrently found that there is no extraneous or outside evidence to support the Petitioner's assertion that the rent was Rs.300.00. Both the courts have not accepted the Petitioner's self-serving statement pertaining to rent being Rs.300.00 per month and have ordered payment of rent at the rate of Rs.2.75 per month. But this order is only interlocutory and subject to change after evidence is brought on record. The Respondents who are litigating are not financially strong. There is a brooding possibility that The effect of an order whereby rent is to be deposited at the rate of Rs.300.00 may have the effect of making it impossible for the Respondents to comply with the order, and thereby endangering the right to defend the petition.