Final Order 18

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: RCT-04/2023 Rajesh Sharma Vs Rajesh Kumar Page 1 of 8
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
& RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL )
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCT No.04/2023
CNR No. DLCT01-000097-2023
Shri Rajesh Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chander Sharma,
R/o B-1536, Main Road,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052.
…..…...Appellant
Versus
Sh. Rajesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Mukand Lal
Proprietor of Seema Cloth House
At B-1536, Private Shop No.2 & 3
Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052.
.…...Respondent
Date of filing of appeal : 03.01.2023
Date of arguments : 19.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 22.08.2025
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellate jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked
under Section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred
to as ‘DRC Act’), impugning the order dated 03.12.2022 vide
which the Ld. ARC has disposed of the application under Section
27 of DRC Act.
-- 1 of 8 --
RCT-04/2023 Rajesh Sharma Vs Rajesh Kumar Page 2 of 8
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Sh.
Rajesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner/respondent’)
filed a petition under Section 27 of DRC Act against Sh. Rajesh
Sharma (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent/appellant’)
alleging that he is tenant of Shop No. B-1536, Private Shop No.3,
Main Road, Shastri Nagar, Delhi at the monthly rent of
Rs.2400/-. The landlord i.e. the respondent/appellant is not
receiving the rent and hence, he is depositing the rent for the
period from 01.01.2020 to 30.06.2020 through this petition @
Rs.2400/- per month.
3. Ld. ARC sent notice of the petition to the respondent /
appellant, who filed the reply taking the objection that the
petition is abuse of process of law. The petitioner herein in the
previous petition, has filed two receipts dated 10.10.2018 and
01.01.2019 categorically mentioning that the rate of rent is Rs.
4800/- per month for shop Nos. 2 & 3 and that there is a single
tenancy @ Rs.4800/- per month. Under Section 3 (c) of DRC
Act, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application as
the rate of rent is more than Rs.3500/- per month. It also alleged
that petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. Sh.
Mukesh Kumar, who is co-owner and thus necessary party. It is
also alleged that petitioner has also not deposited the rent as
provided under Section 26 of DRC Act.
4. It is further alleged that Petitioner and Sh. Mukund Lal,
after admitting one tenancy of shop no. 2 & 3 have paid rent
from 01.08.1994 as single tenancy of Shop no. 2 & 3, now
-- 2 of 8 --
RCT-04/2023 Rajesh Sharma Vs Rajesh Kumar Page 3 of 8
cannot be permitted to say that there are two tenancies. They
have falsely alleged that there are two separate tenancies and rate
of rent is Rs.2400/- per month.
5. Ld. ARC after considering the submissions disposed of the
petition observing as under:-
“The relationship of landlord and tenant is not in
dispute. The only dispute is with respect to the rate of rent.
It is trite that in a proceeding under Section 27 Delhi Rent
Control Act, the complex questions such as that of title or
rate of rent cannot be decided. For the purpose of deciding
the present petition, summary procedure is to be adopted.
It is not the case of the respondent that the issue regarding
the actual rate of rent has already been adjudicated by any
competent court of jurisdiction. By way of present
petition, only permission for depositing rent is being
sought and merely the deposition of such rent before the
present tribunal would neither confer nor take away the
jurisdiction of the competent authority. The parties have
the option to get the rate of rent adjudicated in appropriate
proceedings. Same is not the purport of the summary
procedure. No prejudice shall be caused to the respondent
if permission is granted to the petitioner to deposit the
rent. As regards the issue of non-joinder of the remaining
LRs, it is trite that petition against even one of the co-
owners/co-landlords is maintainable.
In view thereof, the objections filed by the
respondent stand dismissed.”
6. Aggrieved by the order, the present appeal has been
preferred. Notice of the appeal was given to the respondent.
TCR was requisitioned. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties
and perused the record.
7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that it is abuse of
process of law. There was a single tenancy with respect to the
premises no. B-1536, Main Road, Shastri Nagar, Delhi with
-- 3 of 8 --
RCT-04/2023 Rajesh Sharma Vs Rajesh Kumar Page 4 of 8
respect to a shop having two private numbers i.e. shop no. 2 & 3.
Petitioner / respondent himself has placed on record two receipts
dated 10.10.2018 and 01.01.2019 showing monthly rent as
Rs.4800/-. Now they cannot be permitted to say that there are
two separate tenancies, each having monthly rent of Rs.2400/-.
Ld. Counsel submitted that it is settled law that if separate lease
deeds are registered for one unit still it is to be considered as
single tenancy. Ld. Counsel in support of his submissions has
relied upon following judgments:-
1. Mercury Travels (India) Ltd. v. Mahabir Prasad:
2001 (89) DLT 440, wherein Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
has observed in para no.24 as under:-
“24. Admittedly, two lease deeds were executed and got
registered in respect of two portions of the premises in
question. First question which needs to be determined is as
to whether the execution of two lease deeds would lead to
inevitable and necessary conclusion that two tenancies
were created? Further discussion on this aspect would
depend on the outcome of this question. For answering
this question one may refer to Section 107 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 which stipulates as to how leases
are made. The operative portion of this Section reads as
under.
"Section 107. Leases how made - Where a lease of
immovable property is made by a registered instrument,
such instrument or, where there are more instruments
than one each such instrument shall be executed by
both the lessor and the lessee...."
2. S. N. Sheopuri v. Fab India Overseas Pvt. Ltd.:
2011 (181) DLT 255, wherein Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi has observed in para 38 as under:-
-- 4 of 8 --
RCT-04/2023 Rajesh Sharma Vs Rajesh Kumar Page 5 of 8
“38. The evidence, in this case, in the form of Ex.
PW 1/6, Ex. DW7/1 to DW-7/33 shows that common rent
amounts were consistently paid by the defendant, with a
single tax deduction at source, disclosed by it. The
defendant has not produced separate rent receipts in
respect of the six different portions of the premises, for
any period, or even one month. It has also not placed on
record any documentary evidence, in the form of ledger
extracts or books of its accounts, showing that though a
common amount was paid, in its books the amounts were
maintained as rents for separate premises, so as to
establish its case for separate tenancies, to take the case
out of the purview of the civil court. The legal position in
this regard appears to be that even if a property or
"accommodation" is let out for two different purposes (i.e.
residential and commercial) the courts would not be
justified in splitting the tenancy and creating separate
transactions, unless permitted by law. In Hiralal Kapur
(supra) the Supreme Court went so far as to say that if
portions of the premises are occupied by separate
individuals with the approval of the landlord, who receives
amounts separately from each of them, as long as the
original tenancy was created by one of them, for the whole
premises, and a portion was later occupied by another
person, at the recommendation of the original tenant, the
law would recognise one tenancy between the landlord
and the original tenant, and the court cannot split the
tenancy. Having regard to these decisions, and upon an
analysis of the facts of this case, it is held that regardless
of the fact that originally, one premise was let out in
favour of the defendant, who was given possession of
different portions later, the conduct and intention of the
parties (whose relationship in respect of all the premises,
was common, and all the premises being part of the same
suit property) was to create a single indivisible tenancy,
the rent for which was Rs. 20,000/-.”
3. Constellate Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v.
Shammi Jain: 77 (1999) DLT 65, wherein Hon’ble High
Court has observed in para no. 7 as under:-
“7. We have considered both the points and we find
no merit in either of them. As noticed in the earlier part of
this judgment, the tenant admitted that the rent of the
entire premises was Rs. 4,000/- per month with effect
-- 5 of 8 --
RCT-04/2023 Rajesh Sharma Vs Rajesh Kumar Page 6 of 8
from the year 1986. This admission is contained in the
reply to the notice sent on behalf of the tenant which is
dated 28th March, 1988 and is Ex PW-1/40. Besides this,
in the notice dated 6th June, 1988 Ex. PW-1/41 sent by the
tenant through his Advocate, the appellants set up a
definite plea that the rate of rent was Rs. 4,000/- per
month. The Trial Court is right in observing that it was
only in September 1988 that the applicants sensed that
amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act was in the
offing which would take tenancies where rent was above
Rs. 3,500/- per month out of the purview of the Act, which
led the tenant to start splitting the rent in order to keep the
rent within the limits of the Delhi Rent Control Act, i.e.,
Rs. 3,500/- per month and Rs. 500/- per month. This the
landlady rightly re-fused to accept. Therefore, it is not
open to the appellants to say that the rent of the premises
was Rs.3,500/- per month and there were two tenancies-
one for Rs.3,500/- per month and the other for Rs.500/-
per month. It is a case of one tenancy @ Rs.4,000/- per
month.”
8. Ld. Counsel submitted that herein this case documents
itself show that there was a single tenancy, rate of rent as
Rs.4800/-. Therefore, as per Section 3 (c) of DRC Act, ARC has
no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Ld. ARC should have
dismissed the petition instead of allowing the same and submitted
that order of Ld. ARC be set aside.
9. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that he has deposited
the rent at the rate of Rs.2400/- as there are two separate
tenancies. In the proceedings under Section 27 DRC Act the
complex question of rate of rent or the entitlement cannot be
decided. The tenant has only sought permission to deposit the
rent and hence, the Trial Court has rightly decided the petition
-- 6 of 8 --
RCT-04/2023 Rajesh Sharma Vs Rajesh Kumar Page 7 of 8
without prejudice to the rights of the parties. It is submitted that
there is no merit in the appeal, same be dismissed.
10. After hearing the arguments and going through the record,
I found that so far as the relationship of landlord and tenant is
concerned, that is not disputed. The dispute is only with respect
to the rate of rent and whether there is single tenancy or two
tenancies. It is important to note here that depositing the rent
under Section 27 of DRC Act does not create tenancy by itself, as
held in case of Fayyazuddin and Anr. v. Delhi Waqf Board
and Anr: 2014 (1) AD (Delhi) 183. Therefore, merely by
depositing rent at the rate of Rs.2400/- alleging that there is
separate tenancy for private shop no. 3 in premises no. B-1536,
Main Road, Shastri Nagar, Delhi does not create the tenancy in
favour of respondent.
11. It is settled law that in the proceedings under Section 27 of
DRC Act, complex question of rate of rent or the entitlement
cannot be decided. That has to be decided in appropriate
proceedings when the same are initiated. Therefore in my
opinion, that question could not have been gone into by Ld. ARC
while disposing of the petition.
12. So far as the contention with respect to the single tenancy,
as argued by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that there is a single
tenancy with respect to Private shop no. 2 & 3 forming part of
premises bearing No. B-1536, Main Road, Shastri Nagar, Delhi,
that can be decided only in appropriate proceedings and not
under Section 27 of DRC Act.
-- 7 of 8 --
RCT-04/2023 Rajesh Sharma Vs Rajesh Kumar Page 8 of 8
13. Keeping in view all these facts, it is made clear that the
petition under Section 27 of DRC Act permitting respondent
herein to deposit the rent does not affect rights of either of the
party with respect to the rate of rent or whether there are two
tenancies or single tenancy. That has to be considered by the
court concerned where the issue is raised and having jurisdiction
to decide the same. With these observations, there is no merit in
the appeal. The appeal is disposed of.
14. TCR be sent back with copy of this order.
15. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court
on 22nd day of August, 2025
(Virender Kumar Bansal)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi(D)
-- 8 of 8 --