RFA No. 42/2011 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No. 42/2011 % 10th February, 2011 MD. YAMIN . ...... Appellant Through: Mr. Triloki Pandit with Mr. R.M.Sharma, Advs. VERSUS SAIRA ...... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of the present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.9.2010 whereby the respondent’s/plaintiff’s suit for possession and mesne profits was decreed. 2. The property in question is a plot admeasuring 47 square yards bearing number 30 situated in Khasra No.311, Village-Nasirpur, Delhi now known as Indra park, Block-J, New Delhi and the municipal number now given is RZ-26/P-30-A, Gali No.10-E, Indra Park, Palam Colony, New Delhi. The RFA No. 42/2011 Page 2 of 4 appellant was the tenant in the suit property under one Mohammad Ibrahim and from which Mohammad Ibrahim the respondent/plaintiff had purchased the property. The rent paid was at the rate of Rs.1,100/- per month. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit after termination of tenancy by a notice dated 9.8.2004 as it was alleged that the appellant had failed to pay the arrears of rent of the tenanted premises. 3. After pleadings were completed, the Trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether plaintiff is the owner of the suit property? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction and possession in respect of the suit property? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits. If so, to what extent and from when? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties? OPP. 5. Relief.” 4. On issue no.1, the Trial Court has held the respondent/plaintiff to be owner of the property on the basis of the document exhibited as Ex.PW1/A, which is the sale deed dated 2.6.2004. The Trial Court has held that merely because the appellant wanted a preferential right to purchase the property from the erstwhile owner, cannot mean that the respondent/plaintiff was not the owner. Once the sale deed has been executed by the erstwhile owner Mohammad Ibrahim in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, the Trial Court has rightly decided issue no. 1 holding the respondent/plaintiff to be the owner of the property. In this regard, no RFA No. 42/2011 Page 3 of 4 other factual aspects were pressed before this Court. 5. The appellant/defendant had claimed the status of a protected tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 with respect to the suit property and it was therefore on the appellant to show that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act were extended to this area. This case was argued extensively by one Mr. Ranjit Kumar Dubey, Advocate on 19.1.2011 and whereafter the case was adjourned only for the purpose of the appellant filing in this Court a notification extending the application of the Delhi Rent Control Act to the subject area. Adjournment was however sought on the next date i.e., 7.2.2011 on the ground that the said counsel Mr. Ranjit Kumar Dubey was not available and today yet another counsel has appeared for the appellant to reargue the matter. In any case, the only issue was whether the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 applied to the area in question or not. Ordinarily, this notification, assuming it existed had to be filed before the Trial Court showing the applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act to the premises in question, however, this was not done and only to avoid any injustice, an opportunity was given by this Court in appeal, to file the notification showing the applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. However, such notification has not been filed till date. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree because the appellant was indeed a tenant whose tenancy was terminated by a legal notice dated 9.8.2004 and the premises in question does not fall within the scope of Delhi Rent Control RFA No. 42/2011 Page 4 of 4 Act, 1958. No other issue was advanced. The appeal is therefore without merit, and is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. CM Nos.1188/2011 & 1189/2011 No orders are required to be passed in these applications as the main appeal is disposed of and therefore these applications are also disposed of having become infructuous. FEBRUARY 10, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ak