LAJPAT RAI MADAN Vs. MCD & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 10.2.2010 whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of possession, injunction etc. was dismissed. By the impugned judgment the suit has been dismissed because as per the admitted stand of the appellant, the respondent No.1 is a tenant of the appellant with respect to the suit premises. The suit has been held to be barred by Section 19 of the Slums Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 as no prior permission was taken from the designated authority under this Act prior to filing of the suit.

(2.) The case as set up in the plaint was that the respondent No.1/MCD/tenant has demolished the tenanted premises and therefore by demolition of the premises, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has come to an end and thereby the Civil Court was claimed to have jurisdiction to determine the suit. I may note that the respondent No.1/MCD in the written statement had also taken up a plea that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction by virtue of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and which is an aspect which is duly mentioned in the beginning of the impugned judgment.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant argues that there is no provision in the Delhi Rent Control Act whereby eviction can be allowed on a tenant demolishing the tenanted premises. It is also argued that suit could not have been dismissed by applying the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.