VIDYA WATI Vs. PUNJAB KHADI MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Shanta Devi, Smt. Kanta Devi, Smt. Kaushalya Devi and Smt. Shama Devi four sisters through their attorney Shri Ram Prakash Yadav filed an eviction petition against the respondent Punjab Khadi Mandal, Sultan Bhawan under Section 14(1)(a)&(j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) in respect of one room, kitchen, bath and WC along with open terrace situated on the second floor in H.No.1667, Gali No.35, Abdul Rehman Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (in short the tenanted premises). Smt. Vidyawati Devi the 5th sister of Shanta Devi, Kanta Devi, Kaushalya Devi and Shama Devi was impleaded as a respondent. It was stated that the tenanted premises was let out vide rent agreement dated 5th January, 1986 and Punjab Khadi Mandal illegally added one room and one small store to the tenanted premises which came to the knowledge of the eviction petitioners only on 4th March, 2005 when the property was got inspected through the architect. It was further stated that Punjab Khadi Mandal has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from it despite service of notice. Vide legal notice dated 5th July, 2004 the rent was increased by 10% to Rs. 1210/- per month with effect from 1st September, 2004. However, Punjab Khadi Mandal failed to pay the increased rent and comply with the notice. Thus a notice was issued on 29th November, 2004. Punjab Khadi Mandal was in arrears of rent @ Rs. 1100/- per month with effect from 1st July, 2004 to 31st August, 2004 and with effect from 1st September, 2004 @ Rs. 1210/- per month till date. Though a reply to the notice of demand dated 29th November, 2004 was received on 22nd December, 2004, however no rent was paid.

(2.) During the pendency of the eviction petition No. 589/06 Smt. Shanti Devi, Smt. Kanta Devi and Smt. Shama Devi executed relinquishment deeds and Smt. Kaushalya Devi executed a sale deed with respect to their undivided share in the suit property in favour of Smt. Vidyawati, their sister on 27th April, 2006. On 28th August, 2007 an application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by Smt. Vidyawati seeking substitution as a sole petitioner in place of existing petitioners and deletion of her name as respondent No.2. It was stated in the application that four petitioners have transferred their title and interest in the suit property in favour of Smt. Vidyawati, the applicant and respondent No.2 in the eviction petition and now Smt. Vidyawati is the sole person having complete right, title and interest in the suit property, hence she be substituted as the sole petitioner in place of original petitioners and her name as respondent No.2 be deleted from the array of parties. Thus she was transposed as the sole eviction petitioner.

(3.) On perusal of the material on record vide order dated 20th November, 2007 the learned Rent Controller passed an order under Section 15(1) DRC Act directing Punjab Khadi Mandal to pay or deposit the entire arrears of rent with effect from 1st August, 2004 till 30th April, 2005 @ Rs. 880/- per month, thereafter with effect from 1st May, 2005 till 20th November, 2007 @ Rs. 1100/- per month within one month from the date of the order and shall continue to pay and deposit the future monthly rent @ Rs. 1100/- per month. The issue of enhancement claimed by Smt. Vidyawati with effect from 1st September, 2004 was deferred to be decided at the time of disposal of the petition after deciding the issue whether there was any service of notice of enhancement of the rent or not and whether the petitioner was entitled to any enhanced rent or not.