K S PATCHA Vs. ARUN SARNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/landlord has challenged the legality of order dated 20. 7. 2007 passed by the learned ARC in the eviction petition filed by the landlord under section 14-C read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the petitioner/landlord/owner of flat no. 118 Civil Supplies Co operative Group Housing Society Plot No. 6, sector -4, Dwarka, New Delhi inducted respondent as a tenant by a lease agreement dated 6. 1. 2001 for a period of 11 months at the monthly rent of rs. 3700/ -. The petitioner at that time was employee of CPWD, Government of india and was working as an Assistant Engineer. He retired from the service on 31. 1. 2006. His family consisted of his wife, two sons and two daughters. While in the service, he was occupying the government accommodation and after his retirement he continued to occupy the government flat for some time. However, an eviction order was passed against him under Public Premises Act and he was also charged with penalties for overstaying. Before his retirement, he filed a civil Suit no. 136/2004 for possession and recovery of rent from the respondent. In the WS filed before the Civil Court in the Civil Suit, the respondent took following objections:

(3.) THE petitioner had also made an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree but the said application did not find favour with the civil Judge because of the respondent?s stand that the rent was Rs. 3100/- p. m. . The petitioner then filed a revision petition being CRP No. 190/2006 in this court. While disposing of this petition on 28. 9. 2006, this Court also observed that the allegation of respondent was that the rate of rent was subsequently reduced to Rs. 3100/- per month by way of an oral tenancy. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC before the Civil Judge for withdrawing the Civil Suit with liberty to file a fresh petition under the delhi Rent Control Act. This application was allowed by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 16. 12. 2006 and the petitioner was given liberty to file a petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act. During pendency of the Civil Suit before the Civil Judge, the respondent had been paying rent at the rate of rs. . 3100/-, which was his contention about the rent. After withdrawal of the suit from the Civil Court, the petitioner/landlord filed an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act and in this eviction petition the tenant sought leave to contest the petition on the ground that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition since the contractual rate of rent was Rs. 3700/- per month in terms of the agreement dated 6. 1. 2001. The respondent took the stand that since the petitioner had earlier alleged rent of rs. 3700/- in the Civil Suit, the petitioner was now estopped from alleging rent of Rs. 3100/- before the Rent Controller. He stated that the rate of rent was a disputable issue and the Rent Controller was bound to determine this and this was a contentious issue on which leave to contest should be granted.