Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1447 (DEL)

VINOD C. CHANDIOK v. ELEPHANTA OILS AND VANASPATI

2002-09-19

S.N.KAPUR

body2002
S. N. KAPOOR, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act ) in the year 1999. During the pendency of the petition, the rent exceeded on account of voluntary increase from Rs. 2,398. 00 to around Rs. 3,500. 00. Thus, the premises have been taken out of the purview of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil suit for possession, damages and mesne profit. ( 3 ) IN the year 1999 in the eviction petition an application was filed by the respondent alleging that the eviction petition be dismissed on the ground that as per the allegation of the petitioner in the civil suit, the eviction petition before the Rent Controller had been rendered infructuous. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Rent Controller has passed an order relying on M/s. Ambalal sarabhai Vs. M/s. Amrit Lal, 2000 RLR 705 directing the petitioner to opt for one of those proceedings and in terms of the impugned order the petitioner was directed to file certified copy of the order regarding withdrawal of the civil suit on the next date. ( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid direction, the present revision petition has been filed. ( 6 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has every right to proceed with eviction petition in respect of the cause of action which had accrued to the petitioner when the premises were governed and covered by Delhi Rent control Act, for the rent was only Rs. 2,300. 00 ( 7 ) THE rent has now admittedly not been increased. In case the rent had been increased in terms of Section 6a of the Act, the rent could have been increased by 10% every three years meaning thereby that the rent could have been increased to Rs. 2,530. 00 only from Rs. 2,300. 00 only. Rent has not been increased in terms of Section 6a of the act. The rent has been increased by around rs. 1,500/- or so, admittedly taking the premises in suit beyond the limit of rent Rs. 3,500. 00 per month and thus, beyond the purview of the Act. ( 8 ) IN the above-said scenario, two questions arise before this Court: (I) "whether by increasing rent by Rs 1,500/- and accepting the rent over Rs. 3,500. 1,500/- or so, admittedly taking the premises in suit beyond the limit of rent Rs. 3,500. 00 per month and thus, beyond the purview of the Act. ( 8 ) IN the above-said scenario, two questions arise before this Court: (I) "whether by increasing rent by Rs 1,500/- and accepting the rent over Rs. 3,500. 00, the petitioner himseif has not waived the notice and has not given up his right to claim possession on the basis of the notice?"; (ii) "if the rent is over Rs. 3,500. 00, as admitted by both the parties, whether today the Rent Controller would have any authority to pass an order of eviction?" ( 9 ) IF the subsequent events are taken note of by the Court by filing a civil suit and accepting the increase in rent of about Rs. 1,500. 00, i. e. over Rs. 3,500. 00 beyond the provisions of the Act, the premises are taken out of the Act itself. It is not only a matter of serious doubt but appears to be certain that the Rent Controller cannot pass an order of eviction today. ( 10 ) THE judgment in Ambalal Sarabhai Vs. Amrit Lai, (Supra) would not help the petitioner, for the judgment was based on the provisions of General Clauses Act and would come into play only where by virtue of the amendment or by repealing of an enactment, the question about jurisdiction arises; not in a case where by subsequent event or subsequent conduct, the earlier cause of action does not subsist and it is replaced by another subsequent cause of action. ( 11 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I do not think that this petition has got any force and the petitioner has the only option, i. e. either to give up the claim of increased rent by Rs. 1,500. 00 and to pursue the matter before the rent Controller after withdrawing the civil suit or to withdraw the eviction petition, for the Rent Controller has ceased to have jurisdiction to deal with the property in dispute. ( 12 ) BESIDES, it does not appear logical that any party in such like matter should be allowed to pursue two proceedings in respect of the same property leading to multiplicity of proceedings, particularly in order to avoid unnecessary wastage of time, energy and money of the parties and precious time of the Courts. ( 12 ) BESIDES, it does not appear logical that any party in such like matter should be allowed to pursue two proceedings in respect of the same property leading to multiplicity of proceedings, particularly in order to avoid unnecessary wastage of time, energy and money of the parties and precious time of the Courts. ( 13 ) THE petition has got no force. It is dismissed in the light of the above observations.