Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1/4
20 Civ Suit 807/25
Kashmeeri Lal Dua Vs. Gaurav Khosla
CNR No.DLET030013062025
28.09.2026
Present: Sh. Brijesh Kumar Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiffs.
Sh. A.S. Rastogi, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
alongwith defendant.
Arguments have been heard on behalf of both the
parties on the application under Order VII Rule 11 r/w section
151 CPC. Record perused.
The primary argument made by the ld. Counsel for
the defendant is that the present suit is hit by Section 50 of the
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC
Act) as the rent of the suit property as on date is Rs.1,595/- per
month. It has been argued that from a bare perusal of the
allegations and contentions made in the plaint, it is evident that
the monthly rent for the year 2017-2018 was only Rs.1,320/-
which was paid by the defendant through cheques. It has further
been submitted that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the
suit property in 1983 at a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. It has further
been argued that the rent was increased at the agreed rate of 10%
after every three years and the defendant has been paying the
rent anually since the last several years. Ld. Counsel for the
defendant has argued that a sum of Rs.19,140/- was paid by the
defendant to the plaintiffs by way of cheque towards the rent
from 01.04.2024 till 31.03.2025 and the encashment of the said
cheque is reflected in the bank statement filed by the plaintiffs
themselves. It is, therefore, argued that the
-- 1 of 4 --
2/4
present suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d)
CPC.
Per contra, ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs has argued
that the present suit is not barred by Section 50 of DRC Act as
the monthly rent was Rs. 6,655/- on the date of the institution of
the present suit. It is, therefore, prayed that the application be
dismissed with heavy cost.
It is settled law that while considering an application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for determining whether the plaint
is liable to be rejected, only the averments contained in the plaint
are material and can be taken into consideration and any
evidence or averments made in the written statement cannot be
considered. Reliance can be placed on the judgments of
Nusli
Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 557
and
Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb &
Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2717 of 2023 in this regard.
Keeping in view the above settled position of law,
this Court cannot conduct a mini trial or adjudicate disputed
questions of facts while considering the present application. As
per the pleadings of the plaintiffs, the last montly rent paid by the
defendant was Rs.6,655/-. On the basis of the averments in the
plaint, therefore, the plaint cannot be held to be barred under
Section 50 DRC Act. The allegations regarding the rent receipts
filed by the plaintiffs being forged and fabricated and the actual
rate of rent are disputed questions that can only be adjudicated
after evidence is led by the parties.
-- 2 of 4 --
3/4
In view of the above reasons, the application under
Order VII Rule 11 r/w section 151 CPC filed on behalf of the
defendant stands dismissed.
At this stage, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff presses his
application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
By way of the application, the plaintiffs seek
restraint against the defendant from creating any third party
interest in the suit property.
In the present case, it is an admitted position that the
defendant is a tenant in the suit property. The primary dispute
between the parties is with respect to the rate of rent and
consequently, whether the present suit is barred under DRC Act.
In such circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the
plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of interim
protection.
Accordingly, the defendant is restrained from
creating third party interest in the suit property i.e. One shop
admeasuring 11 x 25 ft. at North-West side out of property
bearing Plot no. F-6, out of Khasra No. 62/2 in Abadi of Laxmi
Nagar in area of village Khureji Khas, Illaqa Shahdara,
Delhi-110092, presently known as property no. F-6, Main Road,
Vijay Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 till the disposal of the
present case.
Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC
accordingly stands disposed of.
Now, the following applications remain pending for
adjudication:
-- 3 of 4 --
4/4
(i) Application under Order XV A CPC filed by the plaintiff,
(ii) Application for deposit of rent from 2025 to 2026 filed by the
defendant and,
(iii) Application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC filed by the
plaintiff.
Be put up for arguments on all the aforementioned
applications on 06.01.2027.
(Dr. Saema Jain)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
East/KKD Courts/Delhi
28.09.2026
-- 4 of 4 --