VIMLA DEVI Vs. SUNIL DUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned judgment dated 27th August, 2013 the learned ARC has dismissed the eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) on the ground that since the rent as per the notice dated 30.12.2008 was Rs. 3630/ - P.M. the petition does not fall under the purview of the DRC Act.

(2.) THE petitioner sought eviction of the respondent from shop No. 6, A Block Market, Ashok Vihar, Phase -I, Delhi (in short the tenanted premises) which were let out vide agreement dated 16th November, 2010 at a monthly rent of Rs. 3000/ -. Though as per the agreement it was provided that the rent would be enhanced @ 10% per year, however the same was not acted upon and as per the petitioner in the eviction petition the rent was enhanced to Rs. 3300/ - per month with effect from 1st December, 2005. Though the ground for eviction was bona -fide requirement of the tenanted premises as the petitioner contends that due to financial constraint she was compelled to sell the residential property owned by her and shift to rented accommodation and that her elder son Vijay Mehta was not able to run any business, was unemployed and thus the tenanted premises was bonafidely required for herself and for her son to carry out the business to earn her livelihood. Leave to defend was granted and thus a written statement was filed by the respondent. However, the issue regarding bona -fide requirement is not relevant to the decision of the present petition as in the leave to defend application and in the written statement, the respondent took the plea that the petitioner having sent a notice to the respondent on 30th August, 2008 increasing the rent to Rs. 3630/ - from January 2009 in terms of the Section 6A of DRC Act, the eviction petition under the provisions of DRC Act was not maintainable.

(3.) THE learned ARC in view of the notice dated 30th December, 2008 exhibited as Ex.PW -1/3 being admitted by both the parties came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to try the eviction petition and dismissed the same without returning any finding on the merits of the case.