* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 147/2008 . MOOL CHAND GUPTA Appellant Through Mr. M F Zama, Advocate versus UMARUDDIN KHOKHAR&ORS Respondent Through none CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA ORDER % 09.07.2008 This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional DistrictJudge Shri IS Mehta dated April 22, 2008. By virtue of the impugnedorder, the learnedJudge has upheld the order of the Civil Judge Ms. Shuchi ShahmiridatedJanuary14, 2008 wherebythe suit filed by the respondentsfor possessionof shop situatedin property r no. 656, Gall No. 8, 25 ft. road, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Mustafabad (Naya Mustafabad),Karawal Nagar, Delhi- 110094 was decreed. The only ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the appellantis that the suit propertyis situated in an area which is governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and, therefore, the civil courtwas barredfrom entertainingthe suit. It has been held both by the CivilJudge as well as by the first appellate court that the appellant failed to place on record any notificationissued underthe provisionsof sub-section(2) of Section 1 of the Delhi Rent ControlAct notifyingthat Naya Mustafabadarea where the property is situate is governed by the Delhi Rent Control Signing Date:26.07.2024 17:32:56 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Act, 1958. The learned Civil Judge in his judgment has also observed that the appellant himself had filed a petition . under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act which he later withdrew on the ground that provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act were not applicable to the area where the property in question was situated. However, when the suit against him was filed before the Civil Court, he took somersault and raised a preliminary objection that the suit was barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The learned Civil Judge, thus further observed that the appellant could not be allowed to take contradictory stands as per his whims. Having regard to the concurrent finding of both the Civil Judge and the First Appellate Court holding that the appellant failed to place on record the notification showing that the area where the property is situate is governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, I find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed. JULY 09, 2008 PC. REKHA SHARMA, J.