RFA No. 171/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No. 171/2009 % 16th December, 2011 M/S AAKRITI CARPET (P) LTD. ..... Appellants Through : Mr. Rajiv K. Garg and Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocates. versus SH. NARESH KUMAR & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Vikas K. Chadha and Mr. R.K. Jain, Advocates. Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Advocate for MCD. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial court dated 2.4.2009, by which judgment the trial court decreed the suit filed by the respondent / plaintiff / landlord against the appellant / defendant under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for possession. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent / plaintiff inducted the appellant / defendant as a tenant in the suit property bearing No.447 (Old No.123), B-259, Gali Mandir Wali, Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi at a monthly RFA No. 171/2009 Page 2 of 4 rent of Rs.2,000/- exclusive of other charges. The tenancy was terminated by a legal notice dated 8.8.2006, and since the appellant / defendant failed to vacate the subject property, a suit for possession was filed. It may be noted that prior to filing of the subject suit, the appellant / defendant had filed proceedings under Section 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking that the respondent / plaintiff be directed to maintain the tenanted property and had claimed deduction for expenses made for repairs to the tenanted property. This petition under Section 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, filed by the appellant / defendant was dismissed on the statement of the appellant / defendant that the subject premises did not fall within the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as the Delhi Rent Control Act had not been extended by any notification to the subject area where the suit premises are situated. 3. The trial Court has decreed the suit by holding that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the premises do not fall within the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and that the tenancy was terminated by the legal notice dated 8.8.2006 w.e.f. 30.9.2006, and therefore, the respondent / plaintiff was entitled to possession. 4. Before this Court, I repeatedly put to counsel for the appellant / defendant to show me any notification whereby the Delhi Rent Control Act, RFA No. 171/2009 Page 3 of 4 1958 has been extended to the area where the subject premises are located i.e. in the area of Shahbad Daultpur, but the counsel could not point out any such notification. I may note that before the Delhi Rent Control Act is applicable, as per Section 1 of the said Act, the same has to be extended by means of a notification to an area, unless the area falls within the first schedule in the Act. The subject premises are not situated in an area which is specified in the first schedule of the Act, and nor has any notification been pointed out to me to show that the Delhi Rent Control Act is extended to the area where the subject premises are situated. The notification which is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is a notification dated 26.2.1986, which has no reference to the area Shahbad Daultpur. 5. In view of the above said fact that the premises are outside the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The appellant / defendant himself in the earlier proceedings under Section 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act admitted that the proceedings could not be filed under the Delhi Rent Control Act as the premises were not situated within the area of operation of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the fact that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties which was terminated by a legal notice, shows that the trial Court rightly decreed the suit under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC for possession. I may finally note that this Court vide order dated RFA No. 171/2009 Page 4 of 4 8.9.2009 directed the appellant to pay the rent of Rs.2,000/- per month as per the agreement, however, the counsel for the respondent says that the appellant has not paid the rent since 1.4.2011, though the same is disputed by the counsel for the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there cannot be estoppel against law, however, this argument is of no effect inasmuch as no notification had been pointed out showing extension of the Delhi Rent Control Act to the area where the subject suit premises are situated. 7. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed with costs of `20,000/-. The Supreme Court in the recent judgment of Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. v. Nirmala Devi & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 249 has observed that it is high time that actual and realistic costs be imposed so that a losing litigant does not profit out of delay caused to the conclusion of the litigation. 8. The appeal is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. Interim orders granted are vacated. VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. DECEMBER 16, 2011 dk