SURAJ PRAKASH MAHAJAN Vs. LACHMAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against theorder made by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, on 27-7-1992 whereby the application of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17, Code ofCivil Procedure as well as application under Order 13 Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code wasdismissed. With a view to appreciate the nature of the amendment soughtfor the petitioner it would by useful to briefly notice the facts of the case asunder :-

(2.) Eviction proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondent resulted in an order of eviction being passed against the respondent andin favour of the petitioner under Section 19(1)(f) of the Delhi Rent ControlAct. Under Clause (f) an order of recovery of possession of the premises canbe made if the premises have become unsafe or unfit for human habitation andarc required bona fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs which cannotbe carried out without the premises being vacated. The litigation under theRent Act went upto Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by order dated 3/05/1990 directed that the petitioner shall complete the reconstruction ofthe shop as per the plan within a period of three months from the date ofthe order and handover the same to the respondent herein within a monththereafter. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of that order of theSupreme Court he reconstructed the entire premises No. 820, Chowk Baoli,Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, and thereafter he offered the new tenancy of theshop to defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 10,000.00. The offer is stated tohave been given by written notice delivered to the defendant. According toplaint, defendant took possesssion on 24/08/1990 and he became atenant of the newly constructed premises at the rent of Rs. 10,000.00 permonth. Further, the petitioner's case is that the respondent/defendant didnot pay the rent at the rate of Rs. IU,000.00 per month since 24/08/1990 and, therefore, the suit for recovery of rent with interest was filed.

(3.) The suit is being contested by the respondent/defendant onvarious grounds, one of it being that no new tenancy as claimed by theplaintiff came into existence after the repairs made by the plaintiff. According to defendant, the rate of rent continues to be Rs. 42.50 and there was nooccasion for surrender of the first tenancy or creation of the new freshtenancy. The defendant has denied the rate of rent of Rs. 10,000.00 permonth.