RC. Rev. 110/2015 & CM 4179/2015. Case: Sobti Furniture Mart Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ravinder Kumar Suri. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | RC. Rev. 110/2015 & CM 4179/2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv., Sidharth Chopra, K.K. Jha and Vineet Kumar, Adv. and For Respondents: Sanjiv Sindhwani, Sr. Adv. and Sumit Ahuja, Adv. |
| Judges | Mukta Gupta, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLI Rule 5; Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)(e), 2, 25B |
| Judgement Date | May 26, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Mukta Gupta, J.
CM 7618/2015 (by respondent)
-
An eviction petition was filed by the respondent Ravinder Kumar Suri against the petitioner M/s. Sobti Furniture Mart Pvt. Ltd. (in short the Sobti Furniture) under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25B DRC Act. The leave to defend application filed by Sobti Furniture was dismissed vide order dated 27th August, 2014 and an eviction order was passed by the learned ARC. The order dated 27th August, 2014 passing the eviction order was challenged by Sobti Furniture in the present revision petition.
-
On 9th March, 2015 when the matter came up for hearing ex-parte, this Court issued notice. On a subsequent application of the petitioner on the next date when the respondent entered appearance, this Court vide order dated 16th April, 2015 stayed the execution of the impugned order dated 27th August, 2014.
-
By the present application the respondent Ravinder Kumar Suri seeks directions to the petitioner/non-applicant for payment of user charges @ market rate of rent. The applicant/respondent along with the application has placed on record lease deed of the adjoining property with similar dimensions which has been let out on 4th March, 2011 at a rent of ` 1,11,000/-. It is thus prayed that Ravinder Kumar Suri is entitled to user charges at the market rate of rent, if not higher than the same rate, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705.
-
Learned counsel for Sobti Furniture relying upon the decision in Sunita Rani & Ors. Vs. Sri Chand & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 628 submits that the law as laid down in Atma Ram Properties is no more good law and in view of this subsequent decision the Court cannot fix rent more than the statutory rent taking out the premises from the purview of the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act.
-
Heard learned counsel for the parties. In Sunita Rani (supra) the Court was dealing with a case where the landlord had sought eviction of three premises i.e. a godown, a shop and a Kothari. All the three eviction petitions were dismissed by the Rent Controller. However, the appellate authority allowed the appeal of the landlord in respect of the go-down and ordered eviction vide judgment dated 30th May, 1989 and by the same judgment rejected the landlord's appeal in respect of shop and Kothari. Thus, the landlord filed two writ petitions in respect of shop and Kothari and the tenant filed in...
To continue reading
Request your trial