SHRI JAGDISH Vs. SMT. KRISHNA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment of the appellate Court dated 28.1.2012 by which the appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court dated 18.2.2011 which had dismissed the suit of the respondent -landlord herein (plaintiff in the trial Court) filed for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and future damages. Appellate Court by the impugned judgment has held that the suit property is situated in the area to which no notification has been issued under sub -Section (2) of Section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and therefore since the Act does not apply to the area in question, the suit before the civil court was maintainable and that it was wrongly held otherwise by the trial court.

(2.) BEFORE me, counsel for the appellant/tenant/defendant sought to draw the attention of this Court to the notification dated 8.12.1954 to argue that by this notification the property in question was urbanized and therefore the same falls within the scope of the Act. This very issue of whether area/property only on the same being urbanized would automatically be covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act has been subject matter of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mitter Sen Jain Vs. Shakuntala Devi : (2000) 9 SCC 720 wherein the Supreme Court has held that by urbanizing the property/area by that itself alone it does not come within the scope of the Act and for bringing the property/area in scope of the Act it is necessary that a notification be specifically issued under sub -Section (2) of Section 1 of the Act. Since the judgment in the case of Mitter Sen Jain (supra) is a small judgment of five paras, I reproduce the same as under: -

(3.) NO other point was pressed. The appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. No costs.