RAJ RANI Vs. SUBODH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the order dated 24th November, 2012 whereby the petitioner's application under Order XIV, Rule 2 and Order VII, Rule 11 CPC for treating the issue of maintainability of suit as preliminary issue and for rejection of the plaint, was dismissed, mainly, on the reason that the recovery of money sought by the respondent/plaintiff is not barred by any of the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short, called the "DRC Act"). The question of quantum of rent is a matter of trial. The suit is not barred by the provisions of Section 6A & 50 of the DRC Act and the respondent is well within his right to seek the prayer for recovery of money being arrears of rent or mesne profits.

(2.) Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration and recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioner/defendant. The respondent in his suit had asserted himself to be the owner and landlord in respect of the property bearing No.243-B, Anaj Mandi, Shahdara, Delhi- 110032 (hereinafter referred to as the "Demised Premises"), having acquired interest in the said property by virtue of inheritance consequent to the death of his father Late Sh.Ram Avtar on 18th August, 2007.

(3.) It was submitted by the respondent that Sh.Ram Sarup, the husband of the petitioner was the tenant under the father of the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- and subsequently, the tenancy was transferred in the name of the petitioner pursuant to the death of Sh.Ram Sarup. It was also asserted by the respondent that the last paid rent of the demised premises was Rs. 600/- per month.