RSA 99/2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 99/2010 Date of Decision: May 14, 2010 RAJIV KUMAR KAPOOR ….. Appellant Through: Mr. Satish Pandey, Adv. with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. versus GURDEEP SINGH ….. Respondent Through: Nemo. % CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH (1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? (2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes J U D G M E N T ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral) RSA 99/2010 and CM APPL Nos.9008-09/2010 1. Gurdeep Singh Respondent (Plaintiff in the suit) filed a Civil suit for possession and damages in respect of the shop measuring 7” x 14” at Ground Floor, Main Satnam Road, forming part of property No. K- RSA 99/2010 Page 2 of 4 72, Krishna Nagar, Delhi against the appellant alleging that after the death of Sanjeev Kumar Kapoor, who did not leave behind any legal heir, shop was occupied by the Respondent and he being in illegal possession of the shop was liable to be evicted. 2. In the said suit, appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that Respondent had given the shop on rent to Sanjeev Kumar Kapoor, who expired on 1.7.2007 and that tenanted premises are governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act. After the death of Sanjeev Kumar Kapoor, appellant is running his business in the name and style of Sanjiv Emporium in the tenanted shop for and on behalf of his parents as the impugned shop was rented out to his mother Smt. Tripta Rani Kapoor on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- and therefore in view of the provisions contained under Section 50 of the Rent Control Act, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 3. The said application was dismissed by the Trial court vide order dated 19.03.2009 with the observations that without proper evidence on record it could not be decided whether the tenanted premises were rented out to Smt. Tripta Rani Kapoor or to deceased Sanjeev Kumar RSA 99/2010 Page 3 of 4 Kapoor and that plaint disclosed a cause of action in favour of the Respondent for filing the suit. 4. Challenge to the order by the appellant in appeal also met the same fate. The Appellate Court while finding itself in agreement with the Trial court dismissed the appeal. Hence, this appeal. 5. Admitted facts are that appellant is in possession of the suit premises and is running his business for and on behalf of Smt. Tripta Rani Kapoor and not as a tenant. Sanjeev Kumar Kapoor was running his business in the said shop before his death on 1.7.2007. He did not leave behind any legal heirs. Appellant could not have inherited the tenancy after the death of Sanjeev Kumar Kapoor. Since, appellant admittedly is not a tenant in the suit premises therefore, provision of Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act are not applicable to ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for possession. 6. Some old rent receipts issued in favour of Smt. Tripta Rani Kapoor were placed on record alongwith the application, but then, Trial court as well as the Appellate Court were right in observing that without affording an opportunity to the parties to lead appropriate evidence, the factum of Smt. Tripta Rani Kapoor being a tenant or not cannot RSA 99/2010 Page 4 of 4 be decided effectively. 7. I am told that parents of deceased Sanjeev Kumar Kapoor i.e. Smt. Tripta Rani Kapoor and her husband have already been arrayed as co-defendants in the suit. The tenancy right of Smt. Tripta Rani Kapoor would be decided by the Trial Court after due trial of the case. 8. Therefore, I find no merit in this appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. (ARUNA SURESH) JUDGE MAY 14, 2010 vk