LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-181

DEEPAK THIRWANI Vs. LACHMAN DAS MANSHARMANI

Decided On August 26, 2013
Deepak Thirwani Appellant
V/S
Lachman Das Mansharmani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed against the order dated 22nd December, 2012 passed in Civil Suit No.51/2012 whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XII, Rule 6 CPC.

(2.) Undisputed facts between the parties are that the petitioners are the joint owners of the property bearing No.4/19, Ground Floor, Vikram Vihar, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi (in short, called the "Suit Property") by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 17th June, 2011. When the said property was purchased, the respondent was already a tenant of ground floor in the suit property which was purchased by the petitioners from Rajiv Sharma and Jasbir Singh Khurana.

(3.) After the purchase of the said property, the petitioners sent a legal notice dated 1st November, 2011 to the respondent, calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month towards the rent to the petitioners. The respondent, in reply, stated that the rent of the premises is Rs. 3,221/- per month as paid to the last owner in February, 2007. The petitioners thereafter sent another legal notice dated 14th November, 2011 calling upon the respondent to pay the entire arrears of rent and also enhance the rent by 10% as per the provisions of Section 6A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereafter called as "DRC Act"). In reply dated 21st November, 2011, the respondent took the plea that the claim of the rent from 2007 cannot be accepted as an immovable property could only be transferred through a sale deed duly registered and not otherwise, i.e. Sale Agreement, GPA, Receipt, Will, etc. With regard to the contention of the enhancement of rent by 10% from January, 2007, the same was also unacceptable to the respondent, stating that the alleged ownership of the property, if any, would commence from 17th June, 2011 and not before that date. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the suit for recovery of possession and damages/mesne profits.