The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Baba Rahim Ali Shah & Anr. vs Sh. Atul Kumar Garg consisting of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed that there are no provisions in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”) that empower the Rent Controller to direct the landlord to repair the tenanted premises.
Facts
The petition alleged that the petitioners were vandalising the suit property and were interfering with its peaceful occupation by the respondents. It was also alleged that the petitioners had caused considerable damage to the suit property, and that they were liable to repair the damage caused by them. On these allegations, the suit prayed for a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the respondent and against the plaintiffs, restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit premises by the respondent, a decree of mandatory injunction to the landlord to carry out necessary repairs in the suit premises. Even, an alternative prayer was made for a direction to the landlord to allow the tenant to repair the suit premises.
The petitioners, as the defendants in the suit filed an application u/s 9 CPC read with Sections 50 and 44 of the DRC Act, alleging that the suit was not maintainable before the learned Civil Judge, but would lie, instead, before the Rent Controller. As such, it was prayed that the suit was not maintainable.
Procedural History
The aforesaid application was dismissed by the impugned order passed by the learned ADJ. Aggrieved, the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction vested in this Court by way of Article 227.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that u/s 9 CPC various Courts are empowered to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits in respect of which taking of cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred.
It noted that nowhere in subsection (1) or (2) of Section 44 of the DRC Act (Landlords duty to keep the premises in good repair) does it refer to any exercise of power by the Controller, but subsection (3) allows the tenant to apply to the Rent Controller for permission to make such repairs himself. Even then, the power of the Controller is to permit the tenant to carry out the repairs and submit, to the Controller, an estimate of the cost of repairs which, after hearing the landlord, the Controller may call upon the landlord to disgorge. So, the DRC Act does not empower the Rent Controller to direct the landlord to repair the tenanted premises.
Reliance was placed on Yogender Pal Bhatia v. Rajesh @ Sonu to observe that Section 44 would not apply where there is a specific allegation that the landlord has deliberately caused damage to the suit premises. The assessment of such a plea could only be done by a Civil Court.
Judgment
The Bench concluded that the impugned order passed by the learned ADJ did not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The impugned order did not warrant any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. So, the petition was dismissed.
Case: Baba Rahim Ali Shah & Anr. vs Sh. Atul Kumar Garg
Citation: CM(M) 592/2022 & CM No. 28211/2022, CM No. 28212/2022
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Decided on: 3rd June 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
