Indermeet Kaur, J.
1 Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 08.07.2011 vide which the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the
CPC (hereinafter referred to as the ''Code'') seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that there is a bar of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control
Act (DRCA) and the present suit for possession is not maintainable had been declined. There is no doubt to the proposition that to deal with an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the averments made in the plaint alone have to be scrutinized and not the defend as sought to be
set up by the defendant.
2. Record shows that the present suit is a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits/damages. The plaintiff Ramesh Kumar Chawla claims
himself to be the owner of the disputed premises i.e. C-1/1, Lal Quarter, Krishan Nagar, Delhi having been let out to the defendant for bank
business and lease deed in this respect has been executed in the year 1976 for a period of 10 years. Contention in para 9 is that the defendant is
paying Rs. 925/- per month as user charges of the premises since 1976 whereas the present value of the suit premises is much more; the market
rent being about Rs. 9,000/- per month; further contention being that the defendant has in fact sublet these premises to some other person from
whom he is charging an exorbitant amount; the defendant is in illegal occupation of the premises. The plaintiff has further averred that a legal notice
dated 19.07.2010 was served upon the petitioner calling upon him to vacate the premises but he has failed to do so; in para 15 it has further been
stated that the defendant is not protected by the DRCA as the present value of the suit premises has escalated and the user charges would be more
than Rs. 9,000/- per month; however in the same para, it has been admitted that the rent in 1976 had been fixed at Rs. 925/- per month; present
suit for possession as also for damages/mesne profits has been filed.
3. Written statement was filed. Thereafter an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code had been filed; the averments made in this application
have been perused. The contention of the defendant is that the lease of the demised premises has been created in the year 1976 @ Rs. 750/- per
month; it was thereafter enhanced to Rs. 925/- per month w.e.f. 18.02.1976; it is pointed out that admittedly no notice has been given to the
defendant for enhancement of rent and as such the last paid rent is only Rs. 925/- per month; the submission of the plaintiff that the premises have
been sublet by the defendant to another person is only a ground for eviction which can be pleaded in eviction proceedings which have to be filed
before the Additional Rent Controller; bar of Section 50 prohibits filing of a civil suit.
4. Reply to the said application was filed disputing this position.
5. However it is not in dispute that a lease deed dated 23.03.1977 had in fact been executed between the parties; this lease deed has in fact been
relied upon by the plaintiff in the plaint. As per this document, the premises had been let out to the defendant @ Rs. 750/- per month; it is also not
in dispute that thereafter the rate of rent was enhanced to Rs. 925/- per month. It is also an admitted fact that no notice has been given by the
plaintiff to the tenant seeking enhancement of rent; contention of the plaintiff being that in terms thereof, market rates have escalated and presently
the value of the suit premises has enhanced and the present user charges as per market rate would be Rs. 9,000/- which in fact entitles the plaintiff
to file the present suit and which has disentitled the defendant to the relief u/s 50 of the DRCA.
6. This submission of the petitioner is clearly bereft of any merit. Admittedly the suit premises had been let out at the last monthly rate of Rs. 925/-
which even as per the plaintiff has not since changed. His only contention which is evident from the averments made in the plaint that Rs. 9,000/-
are the present user charges and thus the bar of Section 50 will create a hurdle.
7. Section 50 of the DRCA reads as under:-
50. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred in respect of certain matters -
(1) Save a otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to the fixation of
standard rent in relation to any premises to which this Act applies or to eviction of any tenant there from or to any other matter which the
Controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Controller under
this Act shall be granted by any civil court or other authority.
(2) If, immediately before the commencement of this Act, there is any suit or proceeding pending in any civil court for the eviction of any tenant
from any premises to which this Act applies and the construction of which has been completed after the 1st day of June, 19951, but before the 9th
day of June, 1955, such suit or proceeding shall, on such commencement, abate.
(3) If, in pursuance of any decree or order made by a court, any tenant has been evicted after the 16th day of August, 1958, from any premises to
which this Act applies and the construction of which has been completed after the 1st day of June, 1951, but before the 9th day of June, 1955,
then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by such evicted tenant
within six months from the date of eviction, direct the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the premises or to pay him such compensation as
the Controller thinks fit.
(4) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as prevailing a civil court from entertaining any suit or proceeding for the decision of any question
of title to any premises to which this Act applies or any question as to the person or persons who are entitled to receive the rent of such premises.
8. It clearly stipulates that no civil Court will entertain any suit or proceedings in so far as it relates to the fixation of standard rent in relation to any
premises to which the Act applies or to eviction of any tenant therefrom or to any matter which the Controller is empowered by or under the Act
to decide. All premises where the rent is below Rs. 3,500/- per month, come within the domain and jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. It is thus
clear from the averments made in the plaint itself that the bar of Section 50 applies and the jurisdiction of civil Courts is thus barred. This is clear
from the averments in the plaint itself. Court in these circumstances had no option but to reject the plaint. The impugned order is thus an illegality. It
is accordingly set aside. The plaint is rejected. Petition disposed of.
