Harnam Singh vs Chuni Lal and Others

Charanjit Talwar, J.

(1) -BY this second appeal u/s 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Harnam Singh challenges the legality of the order passed on 3/10/1984, passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi ,whereby the order u/s 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 Rent Control Act, 1958, has not been extended to the area where the shop in question is situated. According to the appellant the area is known as Pala Colony .Mr. J.N. Arora, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, however, submits that the locality is known as Palam Enclave. The Controller had directed the appellant herein to deposit the entire arrears of rent within one month of the order. Before the Controller as well as the Tribunal the question whether the Act had been extended to the area or that the area in question has yet not been declared as urban area had not been raised. That question 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 a substantial question of law I permitted Mr. Syal to urge it. In support of his plea 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 the ground 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 in question in the present case is situated. Goswamy J. agreed with the findings of the trial Court as well as that of the appellate Court that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, had not been extended to the area in question. I may note here that in the said case the landlord had filed a civil suit for possession of the shop. The tenant had raised a plea that the area,i.e., Palam Enclave had not been urbanized and that the Act had not been extended to it. After recording of the evidence on facts it was held that the said area was not yet urbanized and the provisions of the Act had not been extended to it although it seemed that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was collecting house tax from the owners,

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

(4) In the result the second appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above .The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Rent Controller for hearing and deciding it afresh. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on or before 20thDecember, 1985. No order as to costs.