UCO BANK Vs. RAMESH KUMAR CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER impugned before this Court is the order dated 08.07.2011 vide which the application filed by the defendant under ORDER 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ,,Code) seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that there is a bar of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) and the present suit for possession is not maintainable had been declined.

(2.) THERE is no doubt to the proposition that to deal with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the averments made in the plaint alone have to be scrutinized and not the defend as sought to be set up by the defendant.

(3.) WRITTEN statement was filed. Thereafter an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code had been filed; the averments made in this application have been perused. The contention of the defendant is that the lease of the demised premises has been created in the year 1976 @ Rs. 750/- per month; it was thereafter enhanced to Rs. 925/- per month w.e.f. 18.02.1976; it is pointed out that admittedly no notice has been given to the defendant for enhancement of rent and as such the last paid rent is only Rs. 925/- per month; the submission of the plaintiff that the premises have been sublet by the defendant to another person is only a ground for eviction which can be pleaded in eviction proceedings which have to be filed before the Additional Rent Controller; bar of Section 50 prohibits filing of a civil suit.