Geeta Agarwal vs Sunil Healthcare Ltd.

Indermeet Kaur, J.—The impugned judgment is dated 18.03.2011; a suit for possession had been filed by the landlord seeking eviction of his tenant; his application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as the ''Code'') which he had filed in the course of the proceedings seeking a judgment on admission had been dismissed. The whole crux of the impugned judgment is returned on the finding that the maintenance charges which was being paid by the tenant to the builder was a direct payment which was being made by the tenant to the builder and not being paid directly to the landlord did not qualify as ''rent'' to take it outside the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA).

Facts disclose that an amount of Rs.2,192.15 was being paid as user charges by the tenant to the landlord; another additional sum of Rs.1,312.50 was being paid as maintenance charges to the builder. There is no dispute that this amount of Rs.1,312.50 was being paid by the tenant to the builder directly. Even then this amount would qualify as a ''rent'' and fall within the definition of ''rent'' thus the cumulative figure of Rs.2,192.15 plus Rs.1,312.50 = Rs.3,504.65 had taken the premises outside the purview of the DRCA. Trial Court had returned a finding that this was a triable issue; the trial Court has fallen in error on this score.

In Sewa International Fasions Vs. Suman Kathpalia and Others, a Bench of this Court had noted that the maintenance charges forms part and parcel of the ''rent'' even though the said maintenance charges were being paid directly to builder/promoter.

In view of the aforenoted ratio, it is clear that that the maintenance charges being paid by the tenant to the builder forms a part of the rent and thus, the provisions of the DRCA were not attracted.

All the other ingredients of provision of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code were fulfilled; relationship of landlord and tenant was not in dispute; the receipt of the legal notice 25.06.2010 terminating the tenancy of the tenant w.e.f. 31.07.2010 was also not disputed. In fact a reply has also been filed to the legal notice; the only bone of contention is whether the sum of Rs.1,312.50 was a part of the rent or not. It is clearly a part of the rent and thus the rent being more than Rs.3,500/- per month, provisions of the DRCA were not attracted. The petitioner was entitled to a judgment on admission. The suit of the plaintiff qua his relief for possession is accordingly decreed. Petition disposed of in the above terms.