HARNAM SINGH Vs. CHUNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -By this second appeal under section 39 of theDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Harnam Singh challenges the legality of theorder passed on 3/10/1984, passed by the Rent Control Tribunal,Delhi, whereby the order under section 15(1) of the Act passed on 10/07/1984, by the Rent Controller was affirmed.

(2.) The first plea raised in the second appeal is that the Delhi RentControl Act, 1958, has not been extended to the area where the shop inquestion is situated. According to the appellant the area is known as PalamColony. Mr. J.N. Arora, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, however,submits that the locality is known as Palam Enclave. The Controller haddirected the appellant herein to deposit the entire arrears of rent within onemonth of the order. Before the Controller as well as the Tribunal thequestion whether the Act had been extended to the area or that the area inquestion has yet not been declared as urban area had not been raised. Thatquestion has been urged for the first time in this Court in this second appeal.Aggarwal J., while admitting the appeal by his order of 5/11/1984,stayed the operation of the impugned order. As the question raised is asubstantial question of law I permitted Mr. Syal to urge it. In support of hisplea Mr. Syal relies upon a recent judgment of Goswamy J. in Sh Srikishanv. Sh. Bichhan Lal, R.SA. No. 5 of 1983, decided on 17/09/1985.In the said appeal by the tenant the premises in question was a shop on theground floor of premises bearing no. WZ-28/A, Palam Colony, New Delhi.It is stated at the bar that that shop is in the same area in which the shop inquestion in the present case is situated. Goswamy J. agreed with the findingsof the trial Court as well as that of the appellate Court that the provisions ofthe Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, had not been extended to the area inquestion. I may note here that in the said case the landlord had filed a civilsuit for possession of the shop. The tenant had raised a plea that the area,i.e., Palam Enclave had not been urbanised and that the Act had not beenextended to it. After recording of the evidence on facts it was held that thesaid area was not yet urbanised and the provisions of the Act had not beenextended to it although it seemed that the Municipal Corporation of Delhiwas collecting house tax from the owners,

(3.) In my view the question raised goes to the root of the matter. Itneeds to be decided by the learned Rent Controller. It is entirely for thatCourt whether to decide this question at this stage or at the time of passingof the final decree, after recording evidence.